The Life and Works of Mencius, Vol II (1875)

James Legge

Published by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. It was founded in 1960 thus making 2010 its 50th Anniversary Year.

The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring intellectual issues pertaining to liberty. This is done through the implementation of different programs:

1. Each year, Liberty Fund conducts over 150 conferences throughout the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe.

2. Liberty Fund publishes about 10 books each year, many of which are classic works which have gone out of print. There is an online catalog where these books can be ordered <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>.

3. Liberty Fund has produced video and audio tapes including The Intellectual Portrait Series of videotapes and DVDs which records conversations with some of the most significant thinkers of our time.

4. Liberty Fund hosts two websites which contain books, articles, discussion, and podcasts about liberty: the Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/> and the Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>.

These programs focus on the place individual liberty has in an intellectual heritage evident from ancient times and continuing through our own times. The programs are intended to enrich understanding and appreciation of the complex nature of a society of free and responsible individuals and to contribute to its preservation.

Liberty Fund also sponsors the following websites:

1. Liberty Fund’s main website <http://www.libertyfund.org>

2. LF online catalog <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>

3. The Goodrich Seminar Room Virtual Tour <http://goodrich.libertyfund.org/goodrich/>

4. The Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>

5. Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/>

As a tax-exempt, private operating foundation, Liberty Fund’s purposes are educational. It does not, therefore, engage in political action of any kind. It fulfills its mission by conducting programs, not by awarding grants to outside organizations or individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and websites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

LIBERTY FUND, INC.

8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300

Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

U.S.A.

Phone no.: 1.800.955.8335

Liberty Fund’s Collection of Epub Titles on Liberty

The text you are currently reading comes from Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <http://oll.libertyfund.org>. Additional titles in ePub format can be downloaded from the main OLL website from each title’s Table of Contents page or from this list <http://files.libertyfund.org/output/epub/>. One convenient way to load titles directly into your iPad is to email yourself this link, click on the title of your choice, and open it directly in iBook on your iPad (thus circumventing the need to load titles from your laptop or desktop computer.

Epub and Kindle versions of books published by Liberty Fund are not available for free download. They can be purchased from Amazon.com.

The Online Library of Liberty

The OLL was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc, namely “to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals”. It is a multi-award winning website which makes available at no charge to the public outstanding resources for teaching and learning about the humanities and the social sciences.

Awards

The OLL has won a number of international awards for its outstanding collection of online material in the humanities and social sciences. It has been recognised by

- the Library of Congress for its Minerva archiving project

- the National Endowment for the Humanities

- the British Arts and Humanities Research Council, and

- the International Political Science Association.

The Portable Library of Liberty

The 50th Anniversary Edition (2010) of the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL) contains 1,002 books in PDF format & 34 hours of MP3 audio files from Liberty Fund’s website The Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <oll.libertyfund.org>. Highlights include the complete scholarly editions of the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, the collected works of Jefferson, Madison, J. Adams,and 166 books published by Liberty Fund. It also contains a collection of Quotations about Liberty and Power, MP3 audio files from the Intellectual Portrait Series: Conversations with Leading Classical Liberal Figures of Our Time and the lecture series The Legacy of Friedrich Hayek.

The books and other resources in the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD are designed to be read or listened to on portable devices such as MP3 Players, smart phones, and E-Book Readers. Hence, this collection is called the “Portable” Library of Liberty and has material in the following formats: text-based PDF, MP3, and ePub.

Liberty Fund is happy to send a copy of this data DVD free of charge upon request for educational purposes. Please email the Director at <oll@libertyfund.org> and make sure you include your postal address.

Copyright and Fair Use Statement

There are four different types of texts which Liberty Fund has made available as part of the Online Library of Liberty website, the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL), and ePub titles for hand held reading devices:

1. public domain texts published before 1923. These texts are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. We have put them online in order to further the educational aims of Liberty Fund.

2. texts to which the Liberty Fund has electronic rights, such as the books published by Liberty Fund in both print and online formats

3. other texts to which Liberty Fund has acquired the electronic rights from third parties, such as the journal Literature of Liberty (from the Institute for Humane Studies)

4. titles which are put online under license from third parties, such as the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith (from Oxford University Press).

For titles in the first three categories listed above, no special permission from Liberty Fund is required for quoting material in papers and essays, or for limited photocopying and distribution for academic or other educational or non-profit purposes. The only requirements are that you include proper attribution on the first page of the document being distributed - e.g. for John Locke’s The Two Treatises of Government you would say one of the following:

- if using the OLL website - “This material originally appeared on the Online Library of Liberty hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and accessed on 2010-01-22.” This information can be found in the “Citation” button on the title’s table of contents page.

- or if using the copy on the PLL DVD - “This material originally appeared in the Portable Library of Liberty published by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and PLL v5 (generated 22 January, 2010).” This information can be found in the footer of the EBook PDF.

- or if using the ePub version on a portable reading device: “This material is part of the collection of ePub titles in the Online Library of Liberty website hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. Source Text URL http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 accessed on 2010-04-20.” This information can be found on the “Introduction to the Book” page in this file.

For titles in category two and three, any reprint of material “for profit”, such as a chapter or a substantial section of an online book for inclusion in a book or other publication for sale, requires written permission from Liberty Fund.

For titles in the fourth category you must follow the specific requirements of the copyright holder whose work we publish online under license. This information can be found in the “Introduction to the Book” page under the section “Copyright Information.” In the case of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith published under license from Oxford University Press, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Under our contractual obligations with OUP we have placed the following declaration on the front page of every book and section of the online version of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith:

The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith and the associated volumes are published in hardcover by Oxford University Press. The six titles of the Glasgow Edition, but not the associated volumes, are being published in soft cover by Liberty Fund. The online edition is published by Liberty Fund under license from Oxford University Press.

© Oxford University Press 1976. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be stored transmitted retransmitted lent or reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of Oxford University Press.

Thus, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Liberty Fund cannot grant you this permission because it is not the copyright holder.

THE CHINESE CLASSICS: TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, WITH PRELIMINARY ESSAYS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. ( REVISED AND REPRODUCED FROM THE AUTHOR’S WORK CONTAINING THEORIGINAL TEXT, c.)

BY JAMES LEGGE, D.D., LL.D.

VOL. II. THE LIFE AND WORKS OF MENCIUS

LONDON:

TRÜBNER CO., 57 59, LUDGATEHILL.

1875.

[ All Rightsreserved. ]

THE

LIFE AND WORKS

OF

MENCIUS.

WITH ESSAYS AND NOTES.

BY

JAMES LEGGE, D.D., LL.D.

LONDON:

TRÜBNER CO., 57 59, LUDGATEHILL

1875

[ All Rightsreserved. ]

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS

PREFACE.

WHEN the author, in 1867, published “The Lifeand Teachings of Confucius,” he intimated that it would befollowed by the present volume, “as soon as the publisher shouldfeel authorized by public encouragement to go forward with theundertaking.” It was not long till the publisher gave him noticethat he was ready to go to press with an edition of Mencius, which mighttherefore have appeared in 1868. By that time, however, the author wasoccupied with the fourth and fifth volumes of his larger Work, containingthe ancient poetry of China, and the history of the feudal kingdom of Chowfrom BC 721 to 480; and it was not till towards theend of 1872 that the publication of the fifth volume was completed.

The author then began to take Mencius in hand, and to give the translationand notes in the second volume of his larger Work a careful revision. Thatwas published in 1861, and, as a result of his studies during theintervening years, he saw that some improvement might be effected in hisearlier labours. He therefore wrote out afresh the translation of the sevenBooks of Mencius, and the notes also with a special view to theirsuitability to an edition of the Chinese philosopher for general readers.The volume thus prepared is now submitted to the Public.

In the preface to the former volume the author referred to a re-publicationof his translation of the Chinese Works contained in it in the UnitedStates, and mentioned that the appearance of that re-publication was aprincipal reason why his publisher had asked him to issue a popular editionof the Chinese Classics in his own name. The title-page of the volume,moreover, says expressly that it was“ reproduced for general readers from theauthor’s Work, containing the original Text,c.” If Dr John Heinrich Plath of Münich hadtaken the trouble to read the preface or even the title-page, he wouldhardly have done the injustice to the author which appears in his“Confucius und Seiner Schüler Leben undLehren.” There, in his “Leben des Confucius,1,” on p. 15, he has said that “The Life and Teachingsof Confucius is a delusion practised on the Public, being a mere reprint ofthe author’s Translations in his Chinese Classics, without theChinese Text, and with his short Life of Confucius.” The authorcannot suppose that Dr Plath does not understand plain English sufficientlywell to have saved him from such a misrepresentation. He did not practiseany delusion on the Public, and it ought not to have been even insinuatedthat he had been guilty of such a thing.

London,

1 st March, 1874

.

CONTENTS.

- PROLEGOMENA.

- CHAPTER I. OF THE WORKS OFMENCIUS.

- SECTION I. THEIR RECOGNITION UNDER THE HAN DYNASTY, ANDBEFORE IT ... ... ... ... ... ... PAGE 1

- II. CHAOUK‘E AND HIS LABOURS UPON MENCIUS ... ... 4

- III. OTHERCOMMENTATORS ... ... ... ... 7

- IV. INTEGRITY;AUTHORSHIP: AND RECEPTION AMONG THE CLASSICAL BOOKS ... ...... ... ... 9

- CHAPTER II. MENCIUS ANDHIS OPINIONS.

- I. LIFE OF MENCIUS... ... ... ... ... 14

- II. HIS INFLUENCEAND OPINIONS ... ... ... 37

- APPENDIX

- I. THATTHE NATURE IS EVIL. BY THE PHILOSOPHER SEUN ... 77

- II. ANEXAMINATION OF THE NATURE OF MAN. BY HAN WANKUNG ...... ... ... ... ... 88

- CHAPTER III. OF YANG CHOOAND MIH TEIH.

- SECTION I. THE OPINIONS OF YANG CHOO ... ... ... PAGE 91

- II. THE OPINIONSOF MIH TEIH ... ... ... ... 99

- UNIVERSAL LOVE, PART I. ... ... ... ... 100

- UNIVERSAL LOVE, PART II. ... ... ... ... 102

- UNIVERSAL LOVE, PART III. ... ... ... ... 107

- THE WORKS OF MENCIUS.

- BOOK I.

- KING HWUY OF LEANG, PART I. ... ... ... 123

- KING HWUY OF LEANG, PART II. ... ... ... 139

- BOOK II.

- KUNG-SUN CH‘OW, PART I. ... ... ... ... 159

- KUNG-SUN CH‘OW, PART II. ... ... ... ... 178

- BOOK III.

- T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG, PART I.... ... ... ... 196

- T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG, PART II.... ... ... ... 215

- BOOK IV.

- LE LOW, PART I. ... ... ... ... ... 232

- LE LOW, PART II. ... ... ... ... ... 253

- BOOK V.

- WAN CHANG, PART I. ... ... ... ... 272

- WAN CHANG, PART II. ... ... ... ... 289

- BOOK VI.

- KAOU-TSZE, PART I. ... ... ... ... 306

- KAOU-TSZE, PART II. ... ... ... ... 324

- BOOK VII.

- TSIN SIN, PART I. ... ... ... ... ... 343

- TSIN SIN, PART II. ... ... ... ... ... 366

- INDEXES.

- INDEX I. OF SUBJECTS INTHE WORKS OF MENCIUS ... ... 386

- INDEX II. OF PROPER NAMESIN THE WORKS OF MENCIUS ... ... 396

PROLEGOMENA.

CHAPTER I.: OF THE WORKS OF MENCIUS.

SECTION I.: THEIR RECOGNITION UNDER THE HAN DYNASTY, ANDBEFORE IT.

1. IN the third of the catalogues of Lew Hin, [1] containing a list of the Works of Scholarswhich had been collected up to his time (about AD 1), and in the first subdivision, devoted to authorsof the classical or orthodox School, we have theentry—“The Works of Mencius, in elevenBooks.” At that date, therefore, Mencius’ writingswere known and registered as a part of the literature of China.

2. A hundred years before Hin, wehave the testimony of the historian Sze-ma Ts‘ẹen.In the seventy-fourth Book of his “HistoricalRecords,” there is a brief memoir of Mencius, where he saysthat the philosopher, having withdrawn into private life,“with his disciples, Wan Chang and others, prefaced the She and the Shoo, unfolded theviews of Confucius, and made ‘The Works of Mencius, in sevenBooks.’ ”

The discrepancy that appears between these testimonies, in regard to thenumber of the Books which went by the common name of Mencius, will beconsidered in the sequel. In the mean while it is shown that thewritings of Mencius were recognized by scholars a hundred years beforethe Christian era, which takes us back to little more than a century anda half from the date assigned to his death.

3. Among writers of the Handynasty earlier than Sze-ma Ts‘ëen, there were HanYing, and Tung Chung-shoo, contemporaries, in the reigns of the emperorsWăn, King, and Woo, ( BC 178—86). Portions of their Works remain, and in them arefound quotations from Mencius. Later than these there were Yang Heung( BC 53— AD 18), who wrote a commentary on Mencius, which wasexisting under the Sung dynasty, and Wang Ch‘ung (died about AD 100), who left a chapter ofanimadversions on our philosopher, which still exists.

4. But we find references toMencius and his Works anterior to the dynasty of Han. Between him andthe rise of the Ts‘in dynasty flourished the philosopher SeunK‘ing, of whose writings enough is still preserved to form alarge volume. By many he is regarded as the ablest of all the followersof Confucius. He several times makes mention of Mencius, and one of hismost important chapters,—“That Human Nature isEvil,” seems to have been written expressly againstMencius’ doctrine of its goodness. He quotes his arguments,and endeavours to set them aside.

5. I have used the term recognition in the heading of this section, becausethe scholars of the Han dynasty do not seem to have had any trouble informing or settling the text of Mencius such as we have seen they hadwith the Confucian Analects.

And here a statement made by Chaou K‘e, whose labours upon ourphilosopher I shall notice in the next section, deserves to beconsidered. He says:—“When Ts‘in soughtby its fires to destroy the classical books, and put the scholars todeath in pits, there was an end of the School of Mencius. His Works,however, were included under the common name of‘Philosophical,’ and so the tablets containingthem escaped destruction.” Ma Twan-lin does not hesitate tosay that the statement is incorrect; [1] and it seems strange that Mencius should havebeen exempted from the sweep of a measure intended to extinguish thememory of the most ancient and illustrious sovereigns of China and oftheir principles. But the same thing is affirmed in regard to thewritings of at least one other author of antiquity, the philosopher Yuh;and the frequent quotations of Mencius by HanYing and Tung Chung-shoo, indicating that his Works were a completecollection in their times, give some confirmation toK‘e’s account.

On the whole, the evidence seems rather to preponderate in its favour.Mencius did not obtain his place as “a classic”till long after the time of the Ts‘in dynasty; and though theinfuriate emperor would doubtless have given special orders to destroyhis writings, if his attention had been called to them, we can easilyconceive their being overlooked, and escaping with a mass of otherswhich were not considered dangerous to the new rule.

6. Another statement of ChaouK‘e shows that the Works of Mencius, once recognized underthe Han dynasty, were for a time at least kept with a watchful care. Hesays that, in the reign of the emperor Hëaou-wăn( BC 178—154), “theLun-yu, the Hëaou-king, Mencius, and the Urh-ya were all putunder the care of a Board of ‘Great Scholars,’which was subsequently done away with, only ‘The FiveKing’ being left under such guardianship.” Choo Hehas observed that the Books of the Han dynasty supply no evidence ofsuch a Board; but its existence may be inferred from a letter of LewHin, complaining of the supineness with which the scholars seconded hisquest of the scattered monuments of literature. Hesays:—“Under the emperor Heaou-wăn, theShoo-king reappeared, and the She-king began to sprout and bud afresh.Throughout the empire, a multitude of books were continually makingtheir appearance, and among them the Records and Sayings of all thePhilosophers, which likewise had their place assigned to them in theCourts of Learning, and a Board of Great Scholars appointed to theircharge.” [1]

As the Board of Great Scholars in charge of the Five King was instituted BC 135, we may suppose that the previousarrangement hardly lasted half a century. That it did exist for a time,however, shows the value set upon the writings of Mencius, and confirmsthe point which I have sought to set forth in thissection,—that there were Works of Mencius current in Chinabefore the Han dynasty, and which were eagerly recognized and cherishedby the scholars under it, who had it in charge to collect the ancientliterary productions of their country.

SECTION II.: CHAOU K‘E AND HIS LABOURS UPONMENCIUS.

1. IT has been shown that the Works of Mencius weresufficiently well known from nearly the beginning of the Han dynasty;but its more distinguished scholars do not seem to have devotedthemselves to their study and elucidation. The classics proper claimedtheir first attention. There was much labour to be done in collectingand collating the fragments of them; and to unfold their meaning was thechief duty of every one who thought himself equal to the task. Menciuswas but one of the literati, a scholar like themselves. He could wait.We must come down to the second century of the Christian era to find thefirst great commentary on his writings.

In the Prolegomena to the Confucian Analects, Section i. 7, I have spokenof Ch‘ing Heuen or Ch‘ing K‘ang-shing,who died at the age of 74 some time between AD 190—220, after having commented on every ancient classicalbook. It is said by some [1] that he embracedthe Works of Mencius in his labours. If he did so, which to me is verydoubtful, the result has not come down to posterity. To give to ourphilosopher such a treatment as he deserved, and compose a commentarythat should descend to the latest posterity, was the Work of ChaouK‘e.

2. K‘e was born AD 108. His father was a censor about the courtof the emperor Heaou-gan, and gave him the name of Këa, whichhe afterwards changed into K‘e for the purpose ofconcealment, changing also his original designation of T‘ae-k‘ing intoPin-k‘ing. It was his boast that he could trace his descentfrom the emperor Chuen-hëuh, BC 2510.

In his youth K‘e was distinguished for his intelligence anddiligent study of the classics. He married a niece of the celebratedscholar and statesman Ma Yung, but bore himself proudly towards him andher other relatives. A stern independence and hatred of the sycophancyof the times were from the first characteristic of him, and proved thesource of many troubles.

When he was over thirty, K‘e was attacked with some severe andlingering illness, in consequence of which he lay upon his bed for sevenyears. At one time, thinking he was near his end, he addressed a nephewwho was with him in the following terms:—“Born aman into the world, in retirement I have not displayed the principlesexemplified on mount Ke, [1] nor in office achieved the merit of E andLeu. [2] Heaven has not granted me suchdistinction. What more shall I say? Set up a round stone before mygrave, and engrave on it the inscription,—‘Herelies a recluse of Han, by surname Chaou, and by name Këa. Hehad the will, but not the opportunity. Such was his fate.Alas!’ ”

Contrary to expectation, K‘e recovered, and in AD 154 we find him again engaged in public life, but infour years he is flying into obscurity under a feigned name, to escapethe resentment of T‘ang Hang, one of the principal ministers,and of his partizans. He saved his life, but his family and relativesfell victims to the vengeance of his enemies, and for some time hewandered about the country of the Këang and Hwae, or amongthe mountains and by the sea-coast on the north of the presentShan-tung. One day, as he was selling cakes in a market-place, his noblepresence attracted the attention of Sun Ts‘ung, a younggentleman of Gan-k‘ëw, who was passing by in acarriage, and to him, on being questioned, he made known his history.This proved a fortunate rencontre for him. Sun Ts‘ung tookhim home, and kept him for several years concealed somewhere,“in the centre of a double wall.” And now it wasthat he solaced his hard lot with literary studies. He wooed the muse in twenty-three poetical compositions,which he called “Songs of Adversity,” and achievedhis commentary on Mencius.

On the fall of the T‘ang faction, when a political amnesty wasproclaimed, K‘e emerged from his friendly confinement, andwas employed in important offices, but only to fall a victim again tothe intrigues of the time. The first year of the emperor Ling, AD 168, was the commencement of an imprisonmentwhich lasted more than ten years; but nothing could crush hiselasticity, or daunt his perseverance. In 185, when he had nearlyreached fourscore, he was active as ever in the field of politicalstrife, and wrought loyally to sustain the fortunes of the fallingdynasty. He died at last in AD 201, inKing-chow, whither he had gone on a mission in behalf of his imperialmaster. Before his death, he had a tomb prepared for himself, which waslong shown, or pretended to be shown, in what is now the district cityof Keang-ling in the department of King-chow in Hoo-pih.

3. From the above account ofChaou K‘e it will be seen that his commentary on Mencius wasprepared under great disadvantages. That he, a fugitive and in suchclose hiding, should have been able to produce a work such as it isshows the extent of his reading and acquirements in early days. I havesaid so much about him, because his name should be added to the longroll of illustrious men who have found comfort in sore adversity fromthe pursuits of literature and philosophy. As to his mode of dealingwith his subject, it will be sufficient to give his ownaccount:—

“I wished to set my mind on some literary work, by which Imight be assisted to the government of my thoughts, and forget theapproach of old age. But the six classics had all been explained andcarefully elucidated by previous scholars. Of all the orthodox schoolthere was only Mencius, wide and deep, minute and exquisite, yet obscureat times and hard to see through, who seemed to me to deserve to beproperly ordered and digested. Upon this I brought forth whatever I hadlearned, collected testimonies from the classics and other books, anddivided my author into chapters and sentences. My annotations are givenalong with the original text, and of every chapter I have separatelyindicated the scope. The Books I have dividedinto two Parts, the first and second, making in all fourteensections.

“On the whole, with regard to my labour, I do not venture tothink that it speaks the man of mark, but, as a gift to the learner, itmay dispel some doubts and resolve perplexities. It is not for me,however, to pronounce on its excellencies or defects. Let men ofdiscernment who come after me observe its errors and omissions andcorrect them;—that will be a good service.”

SECTION III.: OTHER COMMENTATORS.

1. ALL the commentaries on Mencius made prior to theSung dynasty ( AD 975) having perished,excepting that of Chaou K‘e, I will not therefore make anattempt to enumerate them particularly. Only three names deserve to bementioned, as frequent reference is made to them in CriticalIntroductions to our philosopher. They were all of the T‘angdynasty, extending, if we embrace in it what is called “Theafter T‘ang,” from AD 624to 936. The first is that of Luh Shen-king, who declined to adopt ChaouK‘e’s division of the text into fourteen sections,and many of whose interpretations, differing from those of the olderauthority, have been received into the now standard commentary of ChooHe. The other two names are those of Chang Yih and Ting Kung-choh, whoseprincipal object was to determine the sounds and tones of charactersabout which there could be dispute. All that we know of their views isfrom the works of Sun Shih and Choo He, who have many references to themin their notes.

2. During the Sung dynasty, thecommentators on Mencius were a multitude, but it is only necessary thatI speak of two.

The most distinguished scholar of the early reigns was Sun Shih, who isnow generally alluded to by his posthumous or honorary epithet of“The Illustrious Duke.” We find him high in favourand reputation in the time of T‘ae-tsung(977—997), Chin-tsung (998—1022), and Jin-tsung(1023—1063). By imperial command, inassociation with several other officers, he prepared a work in two partsunder the title of “The Sounds and Meaning ofMencius,” and presented it to the court. Occasion was takenfrom this for a strange imposture. In the edition of “TheThirteen King,” Mencius always appears with “TheCommentary of Chaon K‘e” and “TheCorrect Meaning of Sun Shih.” Under the Sung dynasty, whatwere called “correct meanings” were made for mostof the classics. They are commentaries and annotations on the principalcommentator, who is considered as the expounder of the classic, theauthor not hesitating, however, to indicate any peculiar views of hisown. The genuineness of Shih’s “Correct Meaning ofMencius” has been questioned by few, but there seems to be nodoubt of its being really a forgery, at the same time that it containsthe substance of the true Work of “the IllustriousDuke,” so far as that embraced the meaning of Mencius and ofChaou K‘e. The account of it given in the preface to“An Examination of the Text in the Commentary and Annotationson Mencius,” by Yuen Yuen of the present dynasty,is—“Sun Shih himself made no ‘CorrectMeaning;’ but some one—I know notwho—supposing that his Work was really of that character, andthat there were many things in the commentary which were not explained,and passages also of an unsatisfactory nature, he transcribed the wholeof Shih’s Work on ‘The Sounds andMeaning;’ and having interpolated some words of his own,published it under the title of ‘The Annotations of SunShih.’ He was the same person who is styled by Choo He‘A scholar of Shaou-woo.”’

In the 12th century Choo He appeared upon the stage, and entered into thelabours of all his predecessors. He published one Work separately uponMencius, and two upon Mencius and the Confucian Analects. The second ofthese,—“Collected Comments on the Analects andMencius,” is now the standard authority on the subject, andhas been the test of orthodoxy and scholarship in the literaryexaminations since AD 1315.

3. Under the present dynasty two important contributions have been madeto the study of Mencius. They are both published in the“Explanations of the Classics under the Imperial dynasty ofTs‘ing.” [1] The former,bearing the title of “An Examinationof the Text in the Commentary and Annotations on Mencius,”forms the sections from 1039 to 1054. It is by Yuen Yuen, theGovernor-general under whose auspices that compilation was published.Its simple aim is to establish the true reading by a collation of theoldest and best manuscripts and editions, and of the remains of a seriesof stone tablets containing the text of Mencius, which were prepared inthe reign of Kaou-tsung ( AD 1128—1162), and are now existing in the Examination Hall ofHang-chow. The second Work, which is still more important, is embracedin the sections 1117—1146. Its titleis—“The Correct Meaning of Mencius, byTsëaou Seun, a Keujin ofKëang-too.” It is intended to be such a Work asSun Shih would have produced, had he really made what has been so longcurrent in the world under his name; and is really valuable.

SECTION IV.: INTEGRITY; AUTHORSHIP; AND RECEPTION AMONG THECLASSICAL BOOKS.

1. WE have seen how the Works of Mencius werecatalogued by Lëw Hin as being in “elevenBooks,” while a century earlier Sze-maTs‘ëen referred to them as consisting only of“seven.” The question has very much vexed Chinesescholars whether there ever really were four additional Books of Menciuswhich have been lost.

2. Chaou K‘e says inhis preface:—“There likewise are four additionalBooks, entitled ‘A Discussion of the Goodness ofMan’s Nature,’ ‘An Explanation ofTerms,’ ‘The Classic of Filial Piety,’and ‘The Practice of Government.’ But neitherbreadth nor depth marks their composition. It is not like that of theseven acknowledged Books. It may be judged they are not really theproduction of Mencius, but have been palmed upon the world by somesubsequent imitator of him.” As the four Books in questionare lost, and only a very few quotations from Mencius, that are notfound in his Works which we have, can be fished up from ancient authors, our best plan is to acquiesce in theconclusion of Chaou K‘e. The specification of“Seven Books,” by Sze-maTs‘ëen is an important corroboration of it. In thetwo centuries preceding our era the four Books whose titles are given byhim may have been made and published under the name of Mencius, and Hinwould only do his duty in including them in his catalogue, unless theirfalsehood was generally acknowledged. K‘e, devoting himselfto the study of our author, and satisfied from internal evidence thatthey were not his, only did his duty in rejecting them. There is noevidence that his decision was called in question by any scholar of theHan or the dynasties immediately following, when we may suppose that theBooks were still in existence.

The author of “Supplemental Observations on the FourBooks,” [1] says upon this subject:—“ ‘It would bebetter to be without books than to give entire credit tothem;’ [2] —thisis the rule for reading ancient books laid down by Mencius himself, andthe rule for us after men in reading about what purport to be lost booksof his. The seven Books we have ‘comprehend [thedoctrine] of heaven and earth, examine and set forth tenthousand topics, discuss the subjects of benevolence and righteousness,reason and virtue, the nature [of man] and thedecrees [of Heaven], misery andhappiness.’ [3] Brilliantly are these things treated of,in a way far beyond what any disciple of Kung-sun Ch‘ow orWan Chang could have attained to. What is the use of disputing aboutother matters? Ho Sheh has his ‘ExpurgatedMencius,’ but Mencius cannot be expurgated. Lin Kin-sze hashis ‘Continuation of Mencius,’ but Mencius needsno continuation. I venture to say— Besides theSeven Books there were no other Works ofMencius. ”

3. On the authorship of the Worksof Mencius, Sze-ma Ts‘ëen and Chaou K‘eare agreed. They say that Mencius composed the seven Books himself, andyet that he did so along with certain of his disciples. The words of thelatter are:—“He withdrew from public life,collected and digested the conversations which he had had with hisdistinguished disciples, Kung-sun Ch‘ow, Wan Chang, andothers, on the difficulties and doubts which they had expressed, andalso compiled himself his deliverances as ex cathedra; —and so published the SevenBooks of his writings.”

This view of the authorship seems to have been first called in questionby Han Yu, commonly referred to as “Han, the Duke ofLiterature,” a famous scholar of the eighth century ( AD 768—824), under theT‘ang dynasty, who expressed himself in the followingterms:—“The books of Mencius were not published byhimself. After his death, his disciples, Wan Chang and Kung-sunCh‘ow, in communication with each other, recorded the wordsof Mencius.”

4. If we wish to adjudicate inthe matter, we find that we have a difficult task in hand. One thing isplain,—the book is not the work of many hands like theConfucian Analects. “If we look at the style of thecomposition,” says Choo He, “it is as if the wholewere melted together, and not composed by joining piece topiece.” This language is too strong, but there is a degree oftruth and force in it. No principle of chronology guided the arrangementof the different parts, and a foreigner may be pardoned if now and thenthe “pearls” seem to him “at randomstrung;” yet the collection is characterized by a uniformityof style, and an endeavour in the separate Books to preserve a unity ofmatter. This consideration, however, is not enough to decide thequestion. Such as the work is, we can conceive it proceeding either fromMencius himself, or from the labours of a few of his disciples engagedon it in concert.

The author of the “Topography of the FourBooks” [1] has this argument to show that the works of Mencius are by Menciushimself:—“The Confucian Analects,” hesays, “were made by the disciples, and therefore they recordminutely the appearance and manners of the sage. But the seven Bookswere made by Mencius himself, and therefore we have nothing in themexcepting the words and public movements of the philosopher.”This peculiarity is certainly consonant with the hypothesis ofMencius’ own authorship, and so far may dispose us to adoptit.

On the other hand, as the princes of Mencius’ time to whom anyreference is made are always mentioned by the honorary epithetsconferred on them after their death, it is argued that those at leastmust have been introduced by his disciples. There are many passages,again, which savour more of a disciple orother narrator than of the philosopher himself. There is, for instance,the commencing sentences of Book III. Pt I.:—“Whenthe Duke Wăn of T‘ăng was crown-prince,having to go to Ts‘oo, he went by way of Sung, and visitedMencius (lit., the philosopher Măng ).Mencius discoursed to him how the nature of man is good, and whenspeaking, always made laudatory reference to Yaou and Shun. When thecrown-prince was returning from Ts‘oo, he again visitedMencius. Mencius said to him, ‘Prince, do you doubt my words?The path is one, and only one.’ ”

5. Perhaps the truth after all isas the thing is stated by Sze-maTs‘ëen,—that Mencius, along with some of his disciples, compiled and composed theWork. It would be in their hands and under their guardianship after hisdeath, and they may have made some slight alterations, to prepare it, aswe should say, for the press. Yet allowing this, there is nothing toprevent us from accepting the sayings and doings as those of Mencius,guaranteed by himself.

6. It now only remains here thatI refer to the reception of Mencius’ Works among theClassics. We have seen how they were not admitted by Lew Hin into hiscatalogue of classical works. Mencius was then only one of the manyscholars or philosophers of the orthodox school. The same classificationobtains in the books of the Suy and T‘ang dynasties; and infact it was only under the dynasty of Sung that the works of Mencius andthe Confucian Analects were authoritatively ranked together. The firstexplicitly to proclaim this honour as due to our philosopher wasCh‘in Chih-chae, [1] whose wordsare—“Since the time when Han, the Duke ofLiterature, delivered his eulogium, ‘Confucius handed[the scheme of doctrine] to Mencius, on whosedeath the line of transmission was interrupted,’ [2] thescholars of the empire have all associatedConfucius and Mencius together. The Books of Mencius are certainlysuperior to those of Seun and Yang, and others who have followed them.Their productions are not to be spoken of in the same day withhis.” Choo He adopted the same estimate of Mencius, and byhis “Collected Comments” on him and the Analectsbound the two sages together in a union which the government of China,in the several dynasties which have succeeded, has with one temporaryexception approved and confirmed.

CHAPTER II.: MENCIUS AND HIS OPINIONS.

SECTION I.: LIFE OF MENCIUS.

1. THE materials for a Memoir of Mencius are veryscanty. The birth and principal incidents of Confucius’ lifeare duly chronicled in the various annotated editions of theCh‘un Ts‘ew, and in Sze-maTs‘ëen.     Paucity and uncertainty ofmaterials.  It is not so in the case of Mencius.Ts‘ëen’s account of him is contained inhalf a dozen columns which are without a single date. That in the“Cyclopædia of Surnames” only covershalf a page. Chaou K‘e is more particular in regard to theearly years of his subject, but he is equally indefinite. Our chiefinformants are K‘ung Foo, and Lëw Heang in his“Record of Note-worthy Women,” but what we find inthem has more the character of legend than history.

It is not till we come to the pages of Mencius himself that we aretreading on any certain ground. They give the principal incidents of hispublic life, extending over about twenty-four years. We learn from themthat in the course of that time he was in such and such places, and gaveexpression to such and such opinions; but where he went first and wherehe went last, it is next to impossible to determine. I have carefullyexamined three attempts, made by competent scholars of the presentdynasty, to construct a Harmony that shall reconcile the statements ofthe “Seven Books” with the current chronologies ofthe time, and do not see my way to adopt entirely the conclusions of anyone of them. [1] The value of the Bookslies in the record which they furnish ofMencius’ sentiments, and the lessons which these supply forthe regulation of individual conduct and national policy. It is oflittle importance that we should be able to lay them down in the strictorder of time.

With Mencius’ withdrawal from public life, all traces of himdisappear. All that is said of him is that he spent his latter yearsalong with his disciples in the preparation and publication of hisWorks.

From this paragraph it will be seen that there is not much to be said inthis section. I shall relate, first, what is reported of the early yearsand training of our philosopher, and then look at him as he comes beforeus in his own pages, in the full maturity of his character andpowers.

2. Mencius is the latinized formof Măng-tsze, “The philosopherMăng.”     His surname, birth-place; parents; theyear of his birth,   BC 371. His surname thus connects him with the Măng orMăng-sun family, one of the three great Houses of Loo, whoseusurpations were such an offence to Confucius in his day. Their powerwas broken in the time of duke Gae ( BC 493—467), and they thenceforth dwindle into comparativeinsignificance. Some branches remained in obscurity in Loo, and otherswent forth to the neighbouring States.

The branch from which Mencius sprang found a home in the small adjacentprincipality of Tsow, which in former times had been made known by thename of Choo. It was absorbed by Loo, and afterwards byTs‘oo, and its name is still retained in one of the districtsof the department of Yen-chow in Shan-tung. Confucius was a native of adistrict of Loo having the same name, whichmany contend was also the birth-place of Mencius, making him a native ofLoo and not of the State of Tsow. To my mind the evidence is decidedlyagainst such a view. [1]

Mencius’ name was K‘o. His designation does notappear in his Works, nor is any given to him by Sze-maTs‘ëen or Chaou K‘e. The latter saysthat he did not know how he had been styled; but the legends tell thathe was called Tsze-keu, and Tsze-yu. The same authorities—ifwe can call them such—say that his father’s namewas Keih, and that he was styled Kung-e. They say also that hismother’s maiden surname was Chang. Nothing is related of theformer but that he died when his son was quite young, but the lattermust have a paragraph to herself. “The mother ofMencius” is famous in China, and held up to the present timeas a model of what a mother should be.

The year of Mencius’ birth was probably the 4th of the emperorLëeh, BC 371. He lived to the age of84, dying in in the year BC 288, the 26th ofthe emperor Nan, with whom terminated the long sovereignty of the Chowdynasty. The first twenty-three years of his life thus synchronized withthe last twenty-three of Plato’s. Aristotle, Zeno, Epicurus,Demosthenes, and other great men of the West, were also hiscontemporaries. When we place Mencius among them, he can look them inthe face. He does not need to hide a diminished head.

3. It was his misfortune,according to Chaou K‘e, “to lose his father at anearly period; [2] but in his youthful years he enjoyed the lessons of his kind mother, who thricechanged her residence on his account.”     Mencius’ mother.

At first they lived near a cemetery, and Mencius amused himself withacting the various scenes which he witnessed at the tombs.“This,” said the lady, “is no place formy son;”—and she removed to a house in themarket-place. But the change was no improvement. The boy took to playingthe part of a salesman, vaunting his wares, and chaffering withcustomers. His mother sought a new house, and found one at last close bya public school. There her child’s attention was taken withthe various exercises of politeness which the scholars were taught, andhe endeavoured to imitate them. The mother was satisfied.“This,” she said, “is the proper placefor my son.”

Han Ying relates another story of this period. Near their house was apig-butcher’s. One day Mencius asked his mother what theywere killing the pigs for, and was told that it was to feed him. Herconscience immediately reproved her for the answer. She said to herself,“While I was carrying this boy in my womb, I would not sitdown if the mat was not placed square, and I ate no meat which was notcut properly;—so I taught him when he was yet unborn. [1] And now when his intelligence is opening, Iam deceiving him;—this is to teach himuntruthfulness!” With this she went and bought a piece ofpork in order to make good her words.

As Mencius grew up, he was sent to school. When he returned home one day,his mother looked up from the web which she was weaving, and asked himhow far he had got on. He answered her with an air of indifference thathe was doing well enough, on which she took a knife and cut the threadof her shuttle. The idler was alarmed, and asked what she meant, whenshe gave him a long lecture, showing that she had done what he wasdoing,—that her cutting her thread was like his neglectinghis learning. The admonition, it is said, had its proper effect; thelecture did not need to be repeated.

There are two other narratives in which Chang-she figures, and though they belong to a later part ofMencius’ life, it may be as well to embrace them in thepresent paragraph.

His wife was squatting down one day in her own room, when Mencius wentin. He was so much offended at finding her in that position, that hetold his mother, and expressed his intention to put her away, because of“her want of propriety.” “It is you whohave no propriety,” said his mother, “and not yourwife. Do not ‘the Rules of Propriety’ say,‘When you are about to ascend a hall, raise your voice; whenyou enter a door, keep your eyes low?’ The reason of therules is that people may not be taken unprepared; but you entered thedoor of your private apartment without raising your voice, and so causedyour wife to be caught squatting on the ground. The impropriety is withyou and not with her.” On this Mencius fell to reprovinghimself, and did not dare to put away his wife.

One day, when he was living with his mother in Ts‘e, she wasstruck with the sorrowfulness of his aspect, as he stood leaning againsta pillar, and asked him the cause of it. He replied, “I haveheard that the superior man occupies the place for which he is adapted,accepting no reward to which he does not feel entitled, and not covetousof honour and emolument. Now my doctrines are not practised inTs‘e:—I wish to leave it, but I think of your oldage, and am anxious.” His mother said, “It doesnot belong to a woman to determine anything of herself, but she issubject to the rule of the three obediences. When young, she has to obeyher parents; when married, she has to obey her husband; when a widow,she has to obey her son. You are a man in your full maturity, and I amold. Do you act as your conviction of righteousness tells you you oughtto do, and I will act according to the rule which belongs to me. Whyshould you be anxious about me?”

Such are the accounts which I have found of the mother of Mencius.Possibly some of them are inventions, but they are devoutly believed bythe people of China;—and it must be to their profit. We may well believe that she was a woman of verysuperior character, and that her son’s subsequent distinctionwas in a great degree owing to her influence and training.

4. From parents we advance to beunder tutors and governors. The moulding hand that has wrought upon usin the pliant years of youth always leavesineffaceable traces upon the character.     Mencius’ instructors; and earlylife.  Can anything be ascertained of the instructoror instructors of Mencius? The reply to this inquiry must besubstantially in the negative, though many have affirmed that he sat asa pupil at the feet of Tsze-sze, the grandson of Confucius. We are toldthis by Chaou K‘e, whose words are:—“Ashe grew up, he studied under Tsze-sze, acquired all the knowledge taughtby ‘The Learned,’ and became thoroughly acquaintedwith ‘The Five King,’ being more especiallydistinguished for his mastery of the She and the Shoo. ” A reference to dates,however, shows that this must be incorrect. From the death of Confuciusto the birth of Mencius there were 108 years, andsupposing—what is by no means probable—thatTsze-sze was born in the year his father died, he must have been 112years old when Mencius was born. The supposition of their having stoodto each other in the relation of master and scholar is inconsistent,moreover, with the style in which Mencius refers to Tsze-sze. Hementions him seven times, showing an intimate acquaintance with hishistory, but never once in a manner which indicates that he had personalintercourse with him.

Sze-ma Ts‘ëen’s account is that“Mencius studied with the disciples of Tsze-sze.”This may have been the case. There is nothing on the score of time tomake it impossible, or even improbable; but this is all that can be saidabout it. No famous names from the school of Tsze-sze have beentransmitted to posterity, and Mencius nowhere speaks as if he felt underspecial obligation to any instructor.

One short sentence contains all that he has said bearing on the pointbefore us:—“Although I could not be a disciple ofConfucius myself, I have endeavoured to cultivate [myvirtue] by means of others [whowere].” [1] The chapter towhich this belongs is rather enigmatical. The other member of itsays:—“The influence of a sovereign sageterminates in the fifth generation. The influence of one who is merely asage does the same.” By “one merely asage” Mencius is understood to mean Confucius; and byextending his influence over five generations, he shows how it waspossible for him to place himself under it by means of others who hadbeen in direct communication with the Master.

We must leave the subject of Mencius’ early instructors in theobscurity which rests upon it. The first forty years of his life arelittle more than a blank to us. Many of them, we may be sure, were spentin diligent study. He made himself familiar during them with all theliterature of his country. Its classics, its histories, its great men,had received his careful attention. Confucius especially became to himthe chief of mortal men, the object of his untiring admiration; and inhis principles and doctrines he recognized the truth for want of anappreciation of which the bonds of society all round him were beingrelaxed, and the empire hastening to a general anarchy.

How he supported himself in Tsow, we cannot tell. Perhaps he waspossessed of some patrimony; but when he first comes forth from hisnative State, we find him accompanied by his most eminent disciples. Heprobably imitated Confucius by assuming the office of ateacher,—not that of a school-master in our acceptation ofthe word, but that of a professor of morals and learning, encouragingthe resort of inquiring minds, in order to resolve their doubts andinform them on the true principles of virtue and society. Thesedisciples would minister to his wants, though we may presume that hesternly maintained his dignity among them, as he afterwards did towardsthe princes of the time, when he appeared among them as a lecturer in another sense of the term. In Book VII.Pt II. xliii., and Book VI. Pt II. ii., we have two instances of this,though we cannot be sure that they belonged to the earlier period of hislife.

5. The state of China had waxedworse and worse during the interval that elapsed between Confucius andMencius. The elements of disorganization which were rife in the times ofthe earlier sage had gone on to produce their natural results.     State of China inMencius’ time.  One feeble sovereign hadfollowed another on the throne, and the dynasty of Chow was ready tovanish away. Men were persuaded of its approaching extinction. Thefeeling of loyalty to it was no longer a cherished sentiment; and theanxiety and expectation were about what new rule would take itsplace.

Many of the smaller fiefs or principalities had been reduced to ahelpless dependence on, or been absorbed by, the larger ones. Of Loo,Ch‘ing, Wei, Woo, Ch‘in, and Sung, conspicuous inthe Analects, we read but little in Mencius.Tsin had been dismembered, and its fragments formed the nuclei of threenew and vigorous kingdoms,—Wei, Chaou, and Han.Ts‘e still maintained its ground, but was barely able to makehead against the States of Ts‘in in the West andTs‘oo in the South. The struggle for supremacy was betweenthese two, the former, as it was ultimately successful, being the moreambitious and incessant in its aggressions on its neighbours.

The princes were thus at constant warfare with one another. Now two ormore would form a league to resist the encroaching Ts‘in, andhardly would that object be accomplished before they were at war amongthemselves. Ambitious statesmen were continually inflaming theirquarrels. The recluses of Confucius’ days, who withdrew indisgust from the world and its turmoil, had given place to a class ofmen who came forth from their retirements provided with arts of war orschemes of policy which they recommended to the contending chiefs. Theymade no scruple of changing their allegiance, as they were moved by whimor interest. Kung-sun Yen and Chang E may be mentioned as a specimen ofthose characters. “Are they not really great men?”it was once asked of Mencius. “Let them once be angry, andall the princes are afraid. Let them live quietly, and the flames oftrouble are extinguished throughout the kingdom.” [1]

It is not wonderful that in such times the minds of men should havedoubted of the soundness of the ancient principles of the acknowledgedsages of the nation. Doctrines, strange and portentous in the view ofMencius, were openly professed. The authority of Confucius was disowned.The foundations of government were overthrown; the foundations of truthwere assailed. Two or three paragraphs from our philosopher will verifyand illustrate this representation of the character of his times.

“A host marches [in attendance on theruler], and stores of provisions are consumed. The hungryare deprived of their food, and there is no rest for those who arecalled to toil. Maledictions are uttered by one to another with eyesaskance, and the people proceed to the commission of wickedness.Thus the royal ordinances are violated, and the people areoppressed, and the supplies of food and drink flow away like water.The rulers yield themselves to the [bad]current, or they urge their [evil] way[against a good one]; they are wild; they areutterly lost.” [2]

“The five chiefs of the princes were sinners against thethree kings. The princes of the present day are sinners against thefive chiefs. The great officers of the present day are sinnersagainst the princes. . . . The crime of him who connives at and aidsthe wickedness of his prince is small, but the crime of him whoanticipates and excites that wickedness is great. The officers ofthe present day all go to meet their sovereigns’wickedness, and therefore I say that they are sinners againstthem.” [1]

“Sage kings cease to arise, and the princes of the Statesgive the reins to their lusts. Unemployed scholars indulge inunreasonable discussions. The words of Yang Choo and Mih Teih fillthe empire. If you listen to people’s discourses, youwill find that they have adopted the views either of Yang or of Mih.[Now,] Yang’s principleis—‘each one for himself,’ whichdoes not acknowledge [the claims of] thesovereign. Mih’s principle is—‘tolove all equally,’ which does not acknowledge[the peculiar affection due to] a father. Butto acknowledge neither king nor father is to be in the state of abeast. Kung-ming E said, ‘In their kitchens there is fatmeat. In their stables there are fat horses. But their people havethe look of hunger, and on the wilds there are those who have diedof famine. This is leading on beasts to devour men.’ Ifthe principles of Yang and Mih are not stopped, and the principlesof Confucius not set forth, those perverse speakings will delude thepeople and stop up [the path of] benevolenceand righteousness. When benevolence and righteousness are stoppedup, beasts will be led on to devour men, and men will devour oneanother.” [2]

6. It is in Ts‘e thatwe first meet with Mencius as a counsellor of the princes, [3]     Menciusthe first time in Ts‘e; some time between   BC 332 and 323. and it wasin this State that he spent much the greater part of his public life.His residence in it, however, appears to have been divided into twoportions, and we know not to which of them to refer many of the chapterswhich describe his intercourse with the prince and his ministers; but,as I have already observed, this is to us of little moment. Our interestis in what he did and said. It matters little that we cannot assign toeach saying and doing its particular date.

That he left Ts‘e the first time before BC 323 is plausibly inferred from Bk II. Pt II. xiv.4; [4] andassuming that the conversation in the sameBook, Pt I. ii., took place immediately before or after his arrival, [1] we candetermine that he did not enter the State before BC 331, for he speaks of himself as having attained atforty years of age to “an unperturbed mind.” Thetwo chapters contain the most remarkable expressions indicative ofMencius’ estimate of himself. In the first, while heglorifies Confucius as far before all other men who had ever lived, hedeclines having comparisons drawn between himself and any of thesage’s most distinguished disciples. In the second, whengoing away sorrowful because he had not wrought the good which hedesired, he observes:—“Heaven does not yet wishthat the empire should enjoy tranquillity and good order. If it wishedthis, who is there besides me to bring it about?”

We may be certain that Mencius did not go to Ts‘e uninvited.His approach was waited for with curious expectation, and the king,spoken of always by his honorary epithet of Seuen, “TheIllustrious,” sent persons to spy out whether he was likeother men. [2] They had their first interview at a place calledTs‘ung, which was so little satisfactory to the philosopherthat he resolved to make only a short stay in the State. Circumstancesoccurred to change this resolution, but though he remained, and evenaccepted office, yet it was only honorary;—he declinedreceiving any salary. [3]

From Ts‘ung he appears to have retired toP‘ing-luh, where Ch‘oo, the prime minister, senthim a present, wishing, no doubt, to get into his good graces. I callattention to the circumstance, though trifling in itself, because itillustrates the way in which Mencius carried himself to the great men.He took the gift, but subsequently, when he went to the capital, he didnot visit the minister to acknowledge it. Hisopinion was that Ch‘oo might have come in person toP‘ing-luh to see him. “There was a gift, but nocorresponding respect.” [1]

When Mencius presented himself at the capital of the State, he washonourably received by the king. Many of the conversations with thesovereign and officers which are scattered through the seven Books,though the first and second are richest in them, must be referred tothis period. The one which is first in place, [2] and which contains thefullest exposition of the philosopher’s views on government,was probably first likewise in time. [3] It sets forth the grandessential to the exercise of royal government,—a heart on thepart of the sovereign impatient of the sufferings of the people, andeager to protect them and make them happy; it brings home to king Seuenthe conviction that he was not without such a heart, and presses on himthe truth that his not exercising it was from a want of will and notfrom any lack of ability; it exposes unsparingly the errors of thecourse he was pursuing; and concludes by an exhibition of the outlinesand happy issues of a true royal sway.

Of this nature were all Mencius’ communications with thesovereign; but he lays himself open in one thing to severe censure.Afraid apparently of repelling the prince from him by the severity ofhis lessons, he tries to lead him on by his very passions. “Iam fond of beauty,” says the king, “and that is inthe way of my attaining to the royal government which youcelebrate.” “Not at all,” replies thephilosopher. “Gratify yourself, only do not let your doing sointerfere with the people’s getting similar enjoyment forthemselves.” [4] So the love of money, the love of war, andthe love of music are dealt with. Mencius thought that if he could onlyget the good of the people to be recognized by Seuen as the great aimwhich he was to pursue, his tone of mind would be so elevated, that theselfish passions and gratifications of which he was the slave would be purified or altogether displaced. And so itwould have been. Where he fails, is in putting his points as ifbenevolence and selfishness, covetousness and generosity, might existtogether. Chinese moralists rightly find fault with him in this respect,and say that Confucius never condescended to such a style ofargument.

Notwithstanding the apparent cordiality of the king’sreception of him, and the freedom with which Mencius spoke his mind attheir interviews, a certain suspiciousness appears to have beenmaintained between them. Neither of them would bend to the other.Mencius would not bow to the royal state; Seuen would not vail bonnet tothe philosopher’s cloak. We have one amusing instance of thestruggles to which this sometimes gave rise. One day Mencius waspreparing to go to court of his own free will, when a messenger arrivedfrom the king, saying he had intended to come and see him, but wasprevented by a cold, and asking whether Mencius would not appear at theaudience next morning. Mencius saw that this was a device on the part ofthe king to avoid stooping to visit him, and though he had been about togo to court, he replied at once that he was unwell. He did not hesitateto meet the king’s falsehood with one of his own.

He did not wish, however, that the king should be ignorant of the truth,and went out next morning to pay a visit of condolence. He supposed thatmessengers would be sent from the court to inquire about his health, andthat, when they took back word that he had gone out visiting, the kingwould understand how his sickness of the day before was onlyfeigned.

It happened as he expected. The king sent a messenger, and his physicianbesides. Mencius being out, they were received by Măng Chung,either his son or cousin, who complicated the affair by an invention ofhis own. “To-day,” he said, “he was alittle better, and hastened to go to court. I don’t knowwhether he has reached it by this time or not.” No soonerwere the visitors gone with this story, than he sent several persons tolook for the philosopher, and urge him to go to the court before hereturned home.

It was now necessary that a full account of the matter should reach theroyal ears; and to accomplish this, Mencius neither went home nor to thecourt, but spent the night at the house of oneof the high officers. They had an animated discussion. The officeraccused Mencius of showing disrespect to the king. The philosopherreplied that no man in Ts‘e showed so much respect for thesovereign as he did, for it was only he who brought high and truly royalsubjects under his notice.

“That,” said the officer, “is not mymeaning. The rule is—‘When theprince’s order calls, the carriage must not be waitedfor.’ You were going to the court, but when you heard theking’s message, you did not do so. This seems not inaccordance with that rule.” Menciusexplained:—“There are three things universallyacknowledged to be honourable,—nobility, age, and virtue.In courts, nobility holds the first place; in villages, age; and forhelping one’s generation and presiding over the people,the other two are not equal to virtue. The possession of one of thethree does not authorize the despising of one who has the othertwo.

“A prince who is to accomplish great deeds will haveministers whom he does not call to go to see him. When he wishes toconsult with their, he goes to them. The prince who does not honourthe virtuous, and delight in their ways of doing, to this extent, isnot worth having to do with.

“There was T‘ang with E Yin:—hefirst learned of him, and then made him his minister; and so withoutdifficulty he became sovereign. There was the duke Hwan with KwanChung:—he first learned of him, and then made him hisminister; and so without difficulty he became chief of all theprinces.

“So did T‘ang behave to E Yin, and the dukeHwan to Kwan Chung, that they would not venture to call them to goto them. If Kwan Chung might not be called to him by his prince, howmuch less may I be called, who would not play the part of KwanChung!” [1]

We are to suppose that these sentiments were conveyed to the king by theofficer with whom Mencius spent the night. It is a pity that theexposition of them could only be effected in such a roundabout manner,and was preceded by such acts of prevarication. But where the twoparties were so suspicious of each other, we need not wonder that theyseparated before long. Mencius resigned his honorary appointment, andprepared to return to Tsow. On this occasion king Seuen visited him, andafter some complimentary expressions asked whether he might expect tosee him again. “I dare not request permission to visit you[at any particular time],” repliedMencius, “but, indeed, it is what I desire.” [2]

The king made another attempt to detain him, and sent an officer, calledShe, to propose to him to remain in the State, on the understanding thathe should have a house large enough to accommodate his disciples, and anallowance of ten thousand measures of grain to support them. AllMencius’ efforts had not sufficed to make king Seuen and hisministers understand him. They thought he was really actuated likethemselves by a desire for wealth. He indignantly rejected the proposal,and pointed out the folly of it, considering that he had alreadydeclined a hundred thousand measures in holding only an honoraryappointment.

So Mencius turned his back on Ts‘e; but he withdrew with aslow and lingering step, stopping three nights in one place, to affordthe king an opportunity to recall him on a proper understanding. Somereproached him with his hesitancy, but he sufficiently explainedhimself. “The king,” he said, “is,after all, one who may be made to do good. If he were to use me, wouldit be for the happiness of Ts‘e only? It would be for thehappiness of the people of the whole empire. I am hoping that the kingwill change; I am daily hoping for this.

“Am I like one of your little-minded people? They willremonstrate with their prince, and on their remonstrance not beingaccepted, they get angry, and, with their passion displayed in theircountenance, they take their leave, and travel with all their strengthfor a whole day, before they will rest.” [1]

7. After he left Ts‘e,Mencius found a home for some time in the small principality ofT‘ăng, on the south of Ts‘e, in theruler of which he had a sincere admirer and docile pupil.     Mencius inT‘ang;—from his leaving T‘se to   BC 318. He did notproceed thither immediately, however, but seems to have taken his way toSung, which consisted mostly of the present department of Kwei-tih inHo-nan. [2] There he was visited by the heirson ofT‘ăng, who made a long detour, while on a journeyto Ts‘oo, for the purpose of seeing him. The philosopherdiscoursed on the goodness of human nature, and the excellent ways ofYaou and Shun. His hearer admired, but doubted. He could not forget, however, and the lessons which he receivedproduced fruit before long.

From Sung Mencius returned to Tsow, by way of Sëeh. In bothSung and Sëeh he accepted large gifts from the rulers, whichhelp us in some measure to understand how he could maintain anexpenditure which must have been great, and which gave occasion also foran ingenious exposition of the principles on which he guided his courseamong the princes.

“When you were in Ts‘e,” said one ofhis disciples, “you refused 100 yih of fine gold, which the king sent, while in Sung you accepted 70 yih, and in Seeh 50. If you were right inrefusing the gift in the first case, you did wrong in accepting itin the other two. If you were right in accepting it in those twocases, you were wrong in refusing it in Ts‘e. You mustaccept one of these alternatives.” “I didright in all the cases,” replied Mencius.“When I was in Sung. I was about to undertake a longjourney. Travellers must be provided with what is necessary fortheir expenses. The prince’s messagewas—‘a present againsttravelling-expenses;’ why should I have declined thegift? In Seeh I was under apprehensions for my safety, and takingmeasures for my protection. The message was—‘Ihave heard you are taking measures to protect yourself, and sendthis to help you in procuring arms.’ Why should I havedeclined the gift? But when I was in Ts‘e. I had nooccasion for money. To send a man a gift when he has no occasion forit is to bribe him. How is it possible that a superior man should betaken with a bribe?” [1]

Before Mencius had been long in Tsow, the crown-prince ofT‘ăng succeeded to the rule of the principality,and, calling to mind the lessons which he had heard in Sung, sent anofficer to consult the philosopher on the manner in which he shouldperform the funeral and mourning services for his father. [2] Mencius of courseadvised him to carry out in the strictest manner the ancientregulations. The new prince’s relatives and the officers ofthe State opposed, but ineffectually. Mencius’ counsel wasfollowed, and the effect was great. Duke Wăn became an objectof general admiration.

By and by Mencius proceeded himself to T‘ăng. Wemay suppose that he was invited thither by the prince as soon as therules of mourning would allow his holding free communication with him.The chapters which give an account of their conversations are reallyinteresting. Mencius recommended thatattention should be chiefly directed to the encouragement of agricultureand education. He would have nourishment secured both for the body andthe mind of every subject. [1] When the duke waslamenting the danger to which he was exposed from his powerful andencroaching neighbours, Mencius told him he might adopt one of twocourses;—either leave his State, and like kingT‘ae go and find a settlement elsewhere, or be prepared todie for his patrimony. “If you do good,” said he,“among your descendants in after-generations there will beone who shall attain to the Royal dignity. But results are with Heaven.What is Ts‘e to you, O prince? Be strong to do good. That isall your business.” [2]

After all, nothing came of Mencius’ residence inT‘ăng. We should like to know what made him leaveit. Confucius said that, if any of the princes were to employ him, heshould achieve something considerable in twelve months, and in thecourse of three years the government would be perfected. [3] Mencius taught that, in his time, with half themerit of former days double the result might be accomplished. [4] Here in T‘ăng a fair fieldseemed to be afforded him, but he was not able to make his promise good.Possibly the good purposes and docility of duke Wăn may nothave held out, or Mencius may have found that it was easier to theorizeabout government, than actually to carry it on. Whatever may have beenthe cause, we find him in BC 319 at the courtof king Hwuy of Leang.

Before he left T‘ăng, Mencius had his rencounterwith the disciples of the “shrike-tongued barbarian of thesouth,” one Heu Hing, who came to T‘ăngon hearing of the reforms which were being made at Mencius’advice by the duke Wăn. This was one of the dreamyspeculators of the time, to whom I have already alluded. He pretended tofollow the lessons of Shin-nung, one of the reputed founders of theempire and the father of husbandry, and came toT‘ăng with his plough upon his shoulder, followedby scores of followers, all wearing the coarsest clothes, and supportingthemselves by making mats and sandals. It was one of his maxims that“the magistrates should be labouring men.” Hewould have the sovereign grow his own rice, and cook his own meals. Not a few of “TheLearned” were led away by his doctrines, but Mencius girt uphis loins to oppose the heresy, and ably vindicated the propriety of adivision of labour, and of a lettered class conducting the government.It is just possible that the appearance of Heu Hing, and the countenanceshown to him, may have had something to do with Mencius’leaving the State.

8. Lëang was anothername for Wei, one of the States into which Tsin had been divided.     Mencius inLeang;—   BC 319,318. King Hwuy, early in his reign, BC 364, had made the city of Taeleang, in the presentdepartment of K‘ae-fung, his capital, and given its name tohis whole principality. It was the year before his death, when Menciusvisited him. [1] A long, stormy, and disastrousrule was about to terminate, but the king was as full of activity andwarlike enterprise as ever he had been. At his first interview withMencius, he addressed him in the well-known words, “VenerableSir, since you have not counted it far to come here, a distance of athousand le, may I presume that you are likewiseprovided with counsels to profit my kingdom?” Mencius inreply starts from the word profit, and expatiateseloquently on the evil consequences that must ensue from making a regardto profit the ground of conduct or the rule of policy. As for himself,his theme must be benevolence and righteousness. On these he woulddiscourse, but on nothing else, and in following them a prince wouldobtain true and sure advantages.

Only five conversations are related between king Hwuy and thephilosopher. They are all in the spirit of the first which has just beendescribed, and of those which he had with king Seuen of Ts‘e.There is the same freedom of expostulation, or, rather, boldness ofreproof, and the same unhesitating assurance of the success that wouldfollow the adoption of his principles. Themost remarkable is the third, where we have a sounder doctrine thanwhere he tells king Seuen that his love of beauty and money and valourneed not interfere with his administration of royal government. Hwuy isboasting of his diligence in the government of his State, and sympathywith the sufferings of his people, as far beyond those of any of theneighbouring rulers, and wondering how he was not more prosperous thanthey. Mencius replies, “Your Majesty is fond ofwar;—let me take an illustration from it. The drums sound,and the weapons are crossed, when suddenly the soldiers on one sidethrow away their coats of mail, trail their weapons behind them, andrun. Some of them run a hundred paces, and some run only fifty. Whatwould you think if those who run fifty paces were to laugh at those whorun a hundred paces?” “They may not doso,” said the king; “they only did not run ahundred paces, but they also ran.” “Since yourMajesty knows this,” was the reply, “you need nothope that your people will become more numerous than those of theneighbouring kingdoms.” The king was thus taught that halfmeasures would not do. Royal government, to be effectual, must becarried out faithfully and in its spirit.

King Hwuy died in BC 319, and was succeeded byhis son, the king Sëang. Mencius appears to have had but oneinterview with him. When he came out from it, he observed to some of hisfriends:—“When I looked at him from a distance, hedid not appear like a sovereign; when I drew near to him, I saw nothingvenerable about him.” [1]

It was of no use to remain any longer in Lëang; he left it,and we meet with him again in Ts‘e.

9. Whether he returnedimmediately to Ts‘e we cannot tell, but the probability isthat he did, and remained in it till the year BC 311. [2]     Mencius the second time inTs‘e;—to   BC 311. When he left it about seven years before, he hadmade provision for his return in case of a change of mind in king Seuen. The philosopher, I apprehend, wascontent with an insufficient assurance of such an alteration. Be that asit may, he went back, and took an appointment again as a high noble.

If he was contented with a smaller reformation on the part of the kingthan he must have desired, Mencius was not himself different from whathe had been. In the court and among the high officers his deportment wasequally unbending; he was the same stern mentor.

Among the officers was one Wang Hwan, called also Tsze-gaou, a favouritewith the king, insolent and presuming. Him Mencius treated with anindifference and even contempt which must have been very provoking. Alarge party were met one time at the house of an officer who had lost ason, for the purpose of expressing their condolences. Mencius was amongthem, when suddenly Wang Hwan made his appearance. One and another movedto do him honour and win from him a smile,—all indeed butMencius, who paid no regard to him. The other complained of therudeness, but the philosopher could show that his conduct was only inaccordance with the rules of propriety. [1]

Now and then he became the object of unpleasant remark and censure. Athis instigation, an officer, Ch‘e Wa, remonstrated with theking on some abuse, and had in consequence to resign his office. Thepeople were not pleased with Mencius, thus advising others to theirharm, and yet continuing to retain his own position undisturbed.“In the course which he marked out for Ch‘eWa,” they said, “he did well, but we do not knowas to the course which he pursues for himself.” Thephilosopher, however, was never at a loss in rendering a reason. Hedeclared that, as his office was honorary, he could act“freely and without restraint either in going forward orretiring.” [2] In this matter we havemore sympathy with the condemnation than with the defence.

Some time during these years there occurred the death ofMencius’ excellent mother. She had been with him inTs‘e, and he carried the coffin to Loo, to bury it near thedust of his father and ancestors. The funeral was a splendid one.Mencius perhaps erred in having it so from hisdislike to the Mihists, who advocated a spare simplicity in all funeralmatters. [1] His arrangements certainly excited the astonishment ofsome of his own disciples, [2] and were the occasionof general remark. [3] He defended himself on the ground that“the superior man will not for all the world be niggardly tohis parents,” and that, as he had the means, there was noreason why he should not give all the expression in his power to hisnatural feelings.

Having paid this last tribute of filial duty, Mencius returned toTs‘e, but he could not appear at court till the three yearsof his mourning were accomplished. [4] It could not be long after this when trouble andconfusion arose in Yen, a large State to the north-west ofTs‘e, in the present Chih-le. Its prince, who was a poorweakling, wished to go through the sham of resigning his throne to hisprime minister, understanding that he would decline it, and that thus hewould have the credit of playing the part of the ancient Yaou, while atthe same time he retained his kingdom. The minister, however, acceptedthe tender, and, as he proved a tyrannical ruler, great dissatisfactionarose. Shin T‘ung, an officer of Ts‘e, askedMencius whether Yen might be smitten. He replied that it might, for itsprince had no right to resign it to his minister, and the minister noright to receive it. “Suppose,” said he,“there were an officer here with whom you were pleased, andthat, without informing the king, you were privately to give him yoursalary and rank; and suppose that this officer, also without theking’s orders, were privately to receive them fromyou:—would such a transaction be allowable? And where is thedifference between the case of Yen and this?” [5]

Whether these sentiments were reported to king Seuen or not, he proceededto attack Yen, and found it an easy prey. Mencius was charged withhaving advised the measure, but he ingeniously repudiated theaccusation. “I answered Shin T‘ung that Yen mightbe smitten. If he had asked me—‘Who may smiteit?’ I would have answeredhim—‘He who is the minister of Heaven may smiteit.’ Suppose the case of a murderer, and that one asksme—‘May this man be put to death?’ Iwill answer him—‘He may.’ If he askme—‘Who may put him to death?’ I willanswer him—‘The chief criminal judge may put himto death.’ But now with one Yen to smite anotherYen:—how should I have advised this?” Thisreference to “The minister of Heaven” strikinglyillustrates what was said about the state of China inMencius’ time. He tells us in one place that hostile Statesdo not correct one another, and that only the supreme authority canpunish its subjects by force of arms. [1] But there was now nosupreme authority in China. He saw in the emperor but “theshadow of an empty name.” His conception of a minister ofHeaven was not unworthy. He was one who, by the distinction which hegave to talents and virtue, and by his encouragement of agriculture andcommerce, attracted all people to him as a parent. He would have noenemy under heaven, and could not help attaining to the Royaldignity. [2]

King Seuen, after conquering and appropriating Yen, tried to getMencius’ sanction of the proceeding, alleging the ease andrapidity with which he had effected the conquest as an evidence of thefavour of Heaven. But the philosopher was true to himself. The people ofYen, he said, had submitted, because they expected to find in the king adeliverer from the evils under which they groaned. If they were pleased,he might retain the State, but if he tried to keep it by force, therewould simply be another revolution. [3]

The king’s love of power prevailed. He determined to keep hisprey, and ere long a combination was formed among the neighbouringprinces to wrest Yen from him. Full of alarm he again consulted Mencius,but got no comfort from him. “Let him restore his captivesand spoils, consult with the people of Yen, and appoint them aruler—so he might be able to avert the threatenedattack.” [4]

The result was as Mencius had predicted. The people of Yen rebelled. Theking felt ashamed before the philosopher, whose second residence inTs‘e was thus brought to an unpleasant termination.

10. We do not know that Menciusvisited any of the princes after this. On leaving Ts‘e, hetook his way again to Sung, the duke of which had taken the title ofking in BC 317.     Mencius in Loo;—   BC 309. A report also had gone abroadthat he was setting about to practise the true royal government, butMencius soon satisfied himself of its incorrectness. [1]

The last court at which we find him is that of Loo, BC 309. The duke P‘ing had there calledYoh-ching, one of the philosopher’s disciples, to hiscouncils, and indeed committed to him the administration of thegovernment. When Mencius heard of it, he was so overjoyed that he couldnot sleep. [2]

The first appearance (in point of time) of this Yoh-ching in the SevenBooks is not much to his credit. He comes to Ts‘e in thetrain of Wang Hwan, the favourite who was an offence to the philosopher,and is very sharply reproved for joining himself to such a character“for the sake of the loaves and fishes.” [3] Other references to him are more favourable. Menciusdeclares him to be “a good man,” “areal man.” [4] He allows that“he is not a man of vigour,” nor “a manwise in council,” nor “a man of muchinformation,” but he says—“he is a manthat loves what is good,” and “the love of what isgood is more than a sufficient qualification for the government of thekingdom;—how much more is it so for the State ofLoo!” [5]

Either on his own impulse or by Yoh-ching’s invitation,Mencius went himself also to Loo, hoping that the prince who hadcommitted his government to the disciple might be willing to listen tothe counsels of the master. The duke was informed of his arrival byYoh-ching, and also of the deference which he exacted. He resolved to goand visit him and invite him to the court. The horses were put to thecarriage, and the duke was ready to start, when the intervention of hisfavourite, a worthless creature called Tsang Ts‘ang, divertedhim from his good purpose. When told by the duke that he was going tovisit the scholar Măng, Ts‘ang said,“That you demean yourself to pay the honour of the firstvisit to a common man, is, I apprehend, because you think that he is a man of talents and virtue. From such men therules of ceremonial proprieties and right proceed; but on the occasionof this Măng’s second mourning, his observancesexceeded those of the former. Do not go to see him, myprince.” The duke said, “I willnot;”—and carriage and horses were ordered back totheir places.

As soon as Yoh-ching had an audience of the duke, he explained the chargeof impropriety which had been brought against Mencius; but the evil wasdone. The duke had taken his course. “I told him,”said Yoh-ching, “about you, and he was coming to see you,when Tsang Ts‘ang stopped him.” Mencius replied tohim, “A man’s advancement is effected, it may be,by others, and the stopping him is, it may be, from the efforts ofothers. But to advance a man or to stop his advance is really beyond thepower of other men; my not finding in the prince of Loo a ruler whowould confide in me, and put my counsels into practice, is from Heaven.How could that scion of the Tsang family cause me not to find the rulerthat would suit me?” [1]

Mencius appears to have accepted this intimation of the will of Heaven asfinal. He has a remarkable saying, that Heaven controls the developmentof a man’s faculties and affections, but as there is anadaptation in his nature for these, the superior man does notsay—“It is the appointment ofHeaven.” [2] In accordance withthis principle he had striven long against the adverse circumstanceswhich threw his hopes of influencing the rulers of his time again andagain in the dust. On his first leaving Ts‘e we saw how hesaid:—“Heaven does not yet wish that the empireshould enjoy tranquillity and good order.” For about fifteenyears, however, he persevered, if peradventure there might be a changein the Heavenly councils. Now at last he bowed in submission. The yearafter and he would reach his grand climacteric. We lose sight of him. Heretired from courts and great officers. We can but think and conjectureof him, according to tradition, passing the last twenty years of hislife amid the more congenial society of his disciples, discoursing tothem, and compiling the Works which have survived as his memorial to thepresent day.

11. I have endeavoured in thepreceding paragraphs to put together theprincipal incidents of Mencius’ history as they may begathered from his Writings. There is no other source of informationabout him, and we must regret that they tell us nothing of his domesticlife and habits. In one of the stories about his mother there is anallusion to his wife, from which we may conclude that his marriage wasnot without its bitternesses. It is probable that the MăngChung, mentioned in Bk II. Pt II. ii., was his son, though this is noteasily reconcileable with what we read in VI. Pt I. v., of aMăng Ke, who was, according to Chaou K‘e, abrother of Măng Chung. We must believe that he left a family,for his descendants form a large clan at the present day.He-wăn, the 56th in descent from Mencius, was, in the periodKëa-tsing ( AD 1522—1566),constituted a member of the Han-lin college, and of the Board in chargeof the five King, which honour was to be hereditary in the family, andthe holder of it to preside at the sacrifices to his ancestor. [1] China’sappreciation of our philosopher could not be more strikingly shown.Honours flow back in this empire. The descendant ennobles his ancestors.But in the case of Mencius, as in that of Confucius, this order isreversed. No excellence of descendants can extend to them; and thenation acknowledges its obligations to them by nobility and distinctionconferred through all generations upon their posterity.

SECTION II.: HIS INFLUENCE AND OPINIONS.

1. CONFUCIUS had hardly passed off the stage of lifebefore his merits began to be acknowledged. The duke Gae, who hadneglected his counsels when he was alive, was the first to pronounce hiseulogy, and to order that public sacrifices should be offered to him.His disciples proclaimed their estimation of him as superior to all thesages whom China had ever seen. Before long this view of him tookpossession of the whole nation; and since theHan dynasty, he has been the man whom sovereign and people havedelighted to honour.

The memory of Mencius was not so distinguished. We have seen that manycenturies elapsed before his Writings were received among the classicsof the empire.     Acknowledgment of Mencius’ inerits by thegovernment  It was natural that under the same dynastywhen this was done the man himself should be admitted to share in thesacrifices presented to Confucius.

The emperor Shin-tsung, [1] in AD 1083, issued a patent, constituting Mencius “duke of theState of Tsow,” and ordering a temple to be built to him inthe district of Tsow, at the spot where the philosopher had beeninterred. In the following year it was enacted that he should have aplace in the temple of Confucius, next to that of Yen Yuen, thefavourite disciple of the sage.

In AD 1330, the emperor Wăn, [2] of the Yuendynasty, made an addition to Mencius’ title, and styled him“duke of the State of Tsow, Inferior Sage.” Thiscontinued till the rise of the Ming dynasty, the founder of which hadhis indignation excited in 1372 by one of Mencius’conversations with king Seuen. The philosopher hadsaid:—“When the ruler regards his ministers as hishands and feet, the ministers regard their ruler as their belly andheart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him asany other man; when he regards them as the ground or as grass, theyregard him as a robber and an enemy.” [3] To apply such names as robber and enemy in anycase to rulers seemed to the imperial reader an unpardonable outrage,and he ordered Mencius to be degraded from his place in the temples ofConfucius, declaring also that if any one remonstrated on the proceedinghe should be dealt with as guilty of “Contempt ofMajesty.”

The scholars of China have never been slow to vindicate the memory of itssages and worthies. Undeterred by the imperial threat,Ts‘ëen T‘ang, a president of the Boardof Punishments, presented himself with a remonstrance,saying—“I will die for Mencius, and my death willbe crowned with glory.” The emperor was moved by hisearnestness, and allowed him to go scathless. In the following year,moreover, examination and reflection produced a change of mind. He issued a second proclamation to theeffect that Mencius, by exposing heretical doctrines and overthrowingperverse speakings, had set forth clearly the principles of Confucius,and ought to be restored to his place as one of his assessors. [1]

In 1530, the ninth year of the period Kea-tsing, a general revision wasmade of the sacrificial canon for the sage’s temple, and thetitle of Mencius was changed into—“The philosopherMăng, Inferior Sage.” So it continues to thepresent day. His place is the second on the west, next to that of thephilosopher Tsăng. Originally, we have seen, he followed YenHwuy, but Hwuy, Tsze-sze, Tsăng, and Măng wereappointed the sage’s four assessors, and had their relativepositions fixed, in 1267.

2. The second edict in the periodHung-woo, restoring Mencius to his place in the temples of Confucius,states fairly enough the services which he is held to have rendered tohis country.     Estimate ofMencius by himself and by scholars.  Thephilosopher’s own estimate of himself has partly appeared inthe sketch of his Life. He seemed to start with astonishment when his disciple Kung-sun Ch‘owwas disposed to rank him as a sage; [1] but he also saidon one occasion—“When sages shall rise up again,they will not change my words.” [2] Evidently, he wasof opinion that the mantle of Confucius had fallen upon him. A work wasto be done in his generation, and he felt himself able to undertake it.After describing what had been accomplished by the great Yu, byChow-kung, and Confucius, he adds:—“I also wish torectify men’s hearts, and to put an end to those perversedoctrines, to oppose their one-sided actions, and banish away theirlicentious expressions; and thus to carry on the work of the threesages.” [3]

3. The place which Menciusoccupies in the estimation of the literati of China may be seen by thefollowing testimonies, selected from those appended by Choo He to theprefatory notice of his Life in the “CollectedComments.”

Han Yu [4] says, “If we wish to study the doctrines of the sages, wemust begin with Mencius.” He also quotes the opinion of YangTsze-yun, [5] “Yang and Mih werestopping up the way [of truth], when Menciusrefuted them, and scattered their delusions withoutdifficulty;” and then remarks uponit:—“When Yang and Mih walked abroad, the truedoctrine had nearly come to nought. Though Mencius possessed talents andvirtue, even those of a sage, he did not occupy the throne. He couldonly speak and not act. With all his earnestness, what could he do? Itis owing, however, to his words, that learners now-a-days still know torevere Confucius, to honour benevolence and righteousness, to esteem thetrue sovereign and despise the mere pretender. But the grand rules andlaws of the sage and sage-emperors had been lost beyond the power ofredemption; only one in a hundred of them was preserved. Can it be saidin those circumstances that Mencius had an easy task? Yet had it notbeen for him, we should have been buttoning the lappets of our coats onthe left side, and our discourse would have been all-confused andindistinct;—it is on this account that I have honouredMencius, and consider his merit not inferior to that ofYu.”

One asked the philosopher Ch‘ing [6] whetherMencius might be pronounced to be a sage. Hereplied, “I do not dare to say altogether that he was a sage,but his learning had reached the extremest point.” The samegreat scholar also said:—“The merit of Mencius inregard to the doctrine of the sages is more than can be told. Confuciusonly spoke of benevolence, but as soon as Menciusopens his mouth, we hear of benevolence and righteousness. Confucius only spoke of the will or mind, but Menciusenlarged also on the nourishment of thepassion-nature. In these two respects his merit wasgreat.” “Mencius did great service to the world byhis teaching the goodness of man’s nature.”“Mencius had a certain amount of the heroical spirit, and tothat there always belong some jutting corners, the effect of which isvery injurious. Yen Yuen, all round and complete, was different fromthis. He was but a hair’s-breadth removed from a sage, whileMencius must be placed in a lower rank, a great worthy, an inferiorsage.” Ch‘ing was asked where what he called theheroical spirit of Mencius could be seen. “We have only tocompare his words with those of Confucius,” he said,“and we shall perceive it. It is like the comparison of iceor crystal with a precious stone. The ice is bright enough, but theprecious stone, without so much brilliancy, has a softness and richnessall its own.” [1] The scholar Yang Kwei-shan [2] says:—“The great object of Mencius in his writingsis to rectify men’s hearts, teaching them to preserve theirheart and nourish their nature, and to recover their lost heart. When hediscourses of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge, herefers to the principles of these in the heart commiserating, feelingshame and dislike, affected with modesty and complaisance, approving and disapproving. When he speaks of the evilsspringing from perverted speakings, hesays—‘Growing first in the mind, they proveinjurious to government.’ When he shows how a prince shouldbe served, he says—‘Correct what is wrong in hismind. Once rectify the prince, and the kingdom will besettled.’ With him the thousand changes and ten thousandoperations of men all come from the mind or heart. If a man once rectifyhis heart, little else will remain for him to do. In ‘TheGreat Learning,’ the cultivation of the person, theregulation of the family, the government of the State, and thetranquillization of the empire, all have their root in the rectifying ofthe heart and the making the thoughts sincere. If the heart berectified, we recognize at once the goodness of the nature. On thisaccount, whenever Mencius came into contact with people, he testifiedthat man’s nature is good. When Ow-yang Yung-shuh [1] says, that, in the lessons ofthe sages, man’s nature does not occupy the first place, heis wrong. There is nothing to be put before this. Yaou and Shun are themodels for ten thousand ages simply because they followed their nature.And to follow our nature is just to accord with Heavenly principle. Touse plans and arts, away from this, though they may be successful ingreat achievement, is the selfishness of human desires, and as farremoved from the mode of action of the sage, as earth is fromheaven.” I shall close these testimonies with a sentence fromChoo He himself. He says:—“Mencius, when comparedwith Confucius, always appears to speak in too lofty a style; but whenwe hear him proclaiming the goodness of man’s nature, andcelebrating Yaou and Shun, then we likewise perceive the solidity of hisdiscourses.”

4. The judgment concerning ourphilosopher contained in the above quotations will approve itself toevery one who has carefully perused his Works.     Correctness of the above testimonies.Mencius own peculiarities appear in his expositions ofdoctrine.  The long passage from Yang Kwei-shan isespecially valuable, and puts the principal characteristic ofMencius’ teachings in a clear light. Whether those teachingshave the intrinsic value which is ascribed to them is another question.But Mencius’ position withreference to “the doctrines of the sages” iscorrectly assigned. We are not to look for new truths in him. And thisdoes not lead his countrymen to think less highly of him. I ventured tolay it down as one grand cause of the position and influence ofConfucius, that he was simply the preserver of the monuments ofantiquity, and the exemplifier and expounder of the maxims of the goldenage of China. In this Mencius must share with him.

But while we are not to look to Mencius for new truths, the peculiaritiesof his natural character were more striking than those of his master.There was an element of “the heroical” about him.He was a dialectician, moreover. If he did not like disputing, as heprotested that he did not, yet, when forced to it, he showed himself amaster of the art. An ingenuity and subtlety which we cannot but enjoyoften mark his reasonings. We have more sympathy with him than withConfucius. He comes closer to us. He is not so awe-ful, but he is moreadmirable. The doctrines of the sages take a tinge from his mind inpassing through it, and it is with that Mencian character about themthat they are now held by the cultivated classes and by readersgenerally.

I will now call attention to a few passages illustrative of theseremarks. Some might prefer to search them out for themselves in the bodyof the volume, and I am far from intending to exhaust the subject. Therewill be many readers, however, pleased to have the means of forming anidea of the man for themselves brought within small compass. My nextobject will be to review his doctrine concerning man’s mentalconstitution and the nourishment of the passion-nature, in which he issaid to have rendered special service to the cause of truth. That done,I will conclude by pointing out what I conceive to be his chief defectsas a moral and political teacher. To the opinions of Yang Choo and Mih,which he took credit to himself for assailing and exposing, it will benecessary to devote another chapter.

5. It was pointed out in treatingof the opinions of Confucius, that he allowed no “rightdivine” to a sovereign, independent of his exercising abenevolent rule.     Specimensof Mencius’ opinions, and manner of advocatingthem.  This was one of the topics, however, of whichhe was shy. With Mencius, on the contrary, it was a favourite theme. Thedegeneracy of the times and the ardour of hisdisposition prompted him equally to the free expression of hisconvictions about it.

“The people,” he said, “are the mostimportant element [in a country] the spiritsof the land and grain are the next; the ruler is the lightest Whenthe ruler endangers the altars of the spirits of the land and grain,he is changed, and another appointed in his place.     Ongovernment.—The people more important than theruler.  When the sacrificial victims have beenperfect, the millet in its vessels all pure, and the sacrificesoffered at their proper seasons, if yet there ensure drought, or thewaters overflow, the altars of the spirits of the land and grain arechanged, and others appointed.” [1]

“ The people are the most important element ina country, and the ruler is thelightest; ”—that is certainly a bold andringing affirmation.     Anunworthy ruler may be dethroned or put to death.  Mencius was not afraid to follow it to the conclusion that the ruler whowas exercising an injurious rule should be dethroned. His existence isnot to be allowed to interfere with the general good. Killing in such acase is no murder King Seuen once asked, “Was it so thatT‘ang banished Këeh, and that king Woo smoteChow?” Mencius replied, “It is so in therecords.” The king asked, “May a minister then puthis sovereign to death?” Our philosopher’s replywas:—“He who outrages the benevolence proper tohis nature is called a robber; he who outrages righteousness is called aruffian. The robber and ruffian we call a mere fellow. I have heard ofthe cutting off of the fellow Chow, but I have not heard in his case ofthe putting a ruler to death.” [2]

With regard to the ground of the relation between ruler and people,Mencius refers it very clearly to the will of God. In one place headopts for his own purpose the language of king Woo in theShoo-king:—     The ground of the relation between ruler andpeople.  “Heaven, having produced the inferiorpeople, made for them rulers and instructors, with the purpose that theyshould be assisting to God, and therefore gave them distinctionthroughtout the four quarters of the land.” [3] But the question arises—How can this willof Heaven be known? Mencius has endeavoured to answer it. Hesays:—“Heaven gives the empire, but itsappointment is not conferred with specific injunctions. Heaven does notspeak. It shows its will by a man’spersonal conduct and his conduct of affairs.” The conclusionof the whole matter is:—“Heaven sees according asthe people see; Heaven hears according as the peoplehear.” [1]

It may not be easy to dispute these principles. I for one have nohesitation in admitting them. Their application, however, must always beattended with difficulty.     An unworthy ruler may be dethroned by hisrelatives.  Here is a sovereign who is the very reverse ofa minister of God for good. He ought to be removed, but who is to removehim? Mencius teaches in one passage that the duty is to be performed byhis relatives who are also ministers.

King Seuen of Ts‘e asked him about the office of chiefministers. Mencius said, “Which chief ministers is yourMajesty asking about?” “Are there differencesamong them?” inquired the king. “Thereare,” was the reply; “there are the chiefministers who are noble and relatives of the ruler, and there arethose who are of a different surname.” The king said,“I beg to ask about the chief ministers who are noble andrelatives of the ruler.” Mencius answered, “Ifthe ruler have great faults, they ought to remonstrate with him, andif he do not listen to them when they have done so again and again,they ought to appoint another in his place.” The king onthis looked moved, and changed countenance. Mencius said,“Let not your Majesty think what I say strange. You askedme, and I did not dare to reply but correctly.” [2]

This plan for disposing of an unworthy sovereign has been acted on inChina and in other countries. It is the best that can be adopted tosecure the throne in the ruling House.     Virtuous ministers, and the minister ofHeaven, may dethrone a ruler.  But where there are norelatives that have the virtue and power to play such a part, what is tobe done? Mencius has two ways of meeting this difficulty. Contrary tohis general rule for the conduct of ministers who are not relatives, heallows that even they may, under certain conditions, take summarymeasures with their sovereign.

His disciple Kung-sun Ch‘ow said to him, “E Yinsaid, ‘I cannot be near so disobedient aperson,’ and therewith he banishedT‘ae-këah to T‘ung. The people weremuch pleased. When T‘ae-keah became virtuous, he broughthim back, and the people were again much pleased. When worthies areministers, may they indeed banish their rulers in this way when theyare not virtuous?” Mencius replied, “If theyhave the mind of E Yin, they may. If they have not that mind, itwould be usurpation.” [3]

His grand device, however, is what he calls “the minister ofHeaven.” When the sovereign has become worthless and useless,his hope is that Heaven will raise up some one for the help of thepeople;—some one who shall so occupy in his originalsubordinate position as to draw all eyes and hearts to himself. [1] Let him then raise the standard, not of rebellion but ofrighteousness, [2] and hecannot help attaining to the highest dignity. So it was with the greatT‘ang; so it was with the kings Wăn and Woo. Ofthe last Mencius says:—“There was oneman”— i.e., the tyrantChow—“pursuing a violent and disorderly course inthe land, and king Woo was ashamed of it. By one display of his anger,he gave repose to all the people.” [3] He would have beenglad if any one of the princes of his own time had been able to vault ina similar way to the royal throne, and he went about counselling them tothe attempt. “Let your Majesty,” said be to kingSeuen, “in like manner, by one burst of anger, give repose toall the people of the empire.” This was in fact advising torebellion, but the philosopher would have recked little of such acharge. The House of Chow had forfeited in his view its title to thekingdom. Alas! among all the princes he had to do with, he did not findone who could be stirred to so honourable an action.

We need not wonder that Mencius, putting forth the above views so boldlyand broadly, should not be a favourite with the rulers of China. Hissentiments, professed by the literati, and known and read by all thepeople, have operated powerfully to compel the good behaviour of“the powers that be.” It may be said that theyencourage the aims of selfish ambition, and the lawlessness of thelicentious mob. I grant it. They are lessons for the virtuous, and notfor the lawless and disobedient, but the government of China would havebeen more of a grinding despotism, if it had not been for them.

On the readiness of the people to be governed Mencius only differs fromConfucius in the more vehement style in which he expresses hisviews.     The influence ofpersonal character in a ruler.  He does not dwell somuch on the influence of personal virtue, and I pointed out, in thesketch of his Life, how he all but compromisedhis character in his communications with king Seuen, telling him thathis love of women, of war, and of money might be so regulated as not tointerfere with his exercise of true royal government. Still he speaks attunes correctly and emphatically on this subject. He quotesConfucius’ language on the influence generally of superiorson inferiors,—that “the relation between them islike that between the wind and grass; the grass must bend when the windblows upon it;” [1] and he sayshimself:—“It is not enough to remonstrate with aruler on account of the malemployment of ministers, nor to blame errorsof government. It is only the great man who can correct what is wrong inthe ruler’s mind. Let the ruler be benevolent, and all hisacts will be benevolent. Let the ruler be righteous, and all his actswill be righteous. Let the ruler be correct, and all his acts will becorrect. Once rectify the ruler, and the State will be firmlysettled.” [2]

But the misery which he saw around him, in consequence of the prevailinganarchy and constant wars between State and State, led Mencius to insiston the necessity of what he called “a benevolentgovernment.” The king Seang asked him, “Who canunite all under the sky under one sway?”     Benevolent government, and itseffects.  and his reply was, “He who has nopleasure in killing men can so unite it.” [3] His being so possessedwith the sad condition of his time likewise gave occasion, we maysuppose, to the utterance of another sentiment, sufficiently remarkable.“Never,” said he, “has he who would byhis excellence subdue men, been able to subdue them. Let a ruler seek byhis excellence to nourish men, and he will be able to subdue all underheaven. It is impossible that any one should attain to the true royalsway to whom the hearts of all under heaven are notsubject.” [4] The highest style ofexcellence will of course have its outgoings in benevolence. Apart fromthat, it will be powerless, as Mencius says. His words are akin to thoseof Paul:—“Scarcely for a righteous man will onedie: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare todie.”

On the effects of a benevolent rule he says:—

“Keeh and Chow’s losing the kingdom arose fromtheir losing the people: and to lose the people means to lose theirhearts. There is a way to get thekingdom:—get the people, and the kingdom is got. There isa way to get the people:—get their hearts, and the peopleare got. There is a way to get their hearts:—it is simplyto collect for them what they desire, and not to lay on them whatthey dislike. The people turn to a benevolent rule as water flowsdownwards, and as wild beasts run to the wilds. As the otter aidsthe deep waters, driving the fish into them, and as the hawk aidsthe thickets, driving the little birds to them, so Këehand Chow aided T‘ang and Woo, driving the people to them.If among the present rulers throughout the kingdom there were onewho loved benevolence, all the other rulers would aid him by drivingthe people to him. Although he wished not to exercise the royalsway, he could not avoid doing so.”

[1] Two principal elements of this benevolent rule, muchinsisted on by Mencius, deserve to be made prominent. They are to befound indicated in the Analects, and in the older classics also, but itwas reserved for our philosopher to set them forth, sharply defined inhis own style, and to show the connexion between them. Theyare:—that the people be made well off, and that they beeducated;     To make thepeople prosperous, and to educate them, are important elementsin a benevolent rule.  and the former is necessary inorder to the efficiency of the other.

Once, when Confucius was passing through Wei in company with Yen Yew, hewas struck with the populousness of the State. The disciple said,“Since the people are thus numerous, what more shall be donefor them?” Confucius answered, “Enrichthem.” “And when they have been enriched, whatmore shall be done for them?” The replywas—“Teach them.” [2] This briefconversation contains the germs of the ideas on which Mencius delightedto dwell.

We read in one place:—

“Let it be seen to that their fields of grain and hemp arewell cultivated, and make the taxes on them light:—so thepeople may be made rich.

“Let it be seen to that they use their resources of foodseasonably, and expend them only on the prescribedceremonies:—so they will be more than can beconsumed.

“The people cannot live without water and fire; yet if youknock at a man’s door in the dusk of the evening, and askfor water and fire, there is no man who will not give them, such isthe great abundance of them. A sage would govern the kingdom so ascause pulse and grain to be as abundant as water and fire. Whenpulse and grain are as abundant as water and fire, how shall therebe among the people any that are not virtuous?” [3]

Again he says:—

“In good years the children of the people are most of themgood, and in bad years they are most of them evil.” [4]

It is in his conversations, however, with king Seuen of Ts‘eand duke Wăn of T‘ăng, that we find thefullest exposition of the points in hand.

“They are only men of education who, without a certainlivelihood, are able to maintain a fixed heart. As to the people, ifthey have not a certain livelihood, it follows that they will nothave a fixed heart. And if they have not a fixed heart, there isnothing which they will not do in the way of self-abandonment, ofmoral deflection, of depravity, and of wild license. When they havethus been involved in crime, to follow them up and punishthem:—this is to entrap the people. Therefore anintelligent ruler will regulate the livelihood of the people, so asto make sure that, above, they shall have sufficient wherewith toserve their parents, and, below, sufficient wherewith to supporttheir wives and children; that in good years they shall always beabundantly satisfied, and that in bad years they shall escape thedanger of perishing. After this he may urge them, and they willproceed to what is good, for in this case the people will followafter that with readiness.” [1]

It is not necessary to remark here on the measures which Menciusrecommends in order to secure a certain livelihood for the people. Theyembrace the regulation both of agriculture and commerce. [2] And education should be directed simply toillustrate the human relations. [3] What he says onthese subjects is not without shrewdness, though many of hisrecommendations are inappropriate to the present state of society inChina itself as well as in other countries. But his principle, that goodgovernment should contemplate and will be seen in the materialwell-being of the people, is worthy of all honour. Whether governmentshould interfere to secure the education of the people is questioned bynot a few. The religious denomination to which I have the honour tobelong has distinguished itself by opposing such a doctrine inEngland,—more zealously perhaps than wisely. [4] But when Mencius teaches thatwith the mass of men education will have little success where the lifeis embittered by a miserable poverty, he shows himself well acquaintedwith human nature. Educationists now seem generally to recognize it, butI think it is only within a century that it has assumed in Europe thedefiniteness and importance with which it appeared to Mencius here inChina two thousand years ago.

We saw how Mencius, when he was residing in T‘ăng,came into contact with a class of enthusiasts, who advocated a return tothe primitive state of society,

“When Adam delved and Evespan.”

They said that wise and able princes should cultivate theground equally and along with their people, and eat the fruit of theirlabour,—that “to have granaries, arsenals, andtreasuries was an oppressing of the people.”     Necessity for a division oflabour, and that government be conducted by a letteredclass.  Mencius exposed these errors very happily,showing the necessity to society of a division of labour, and that theconduct of government should be in the hands of a lettered class.

“I suppose,” he said to a follower of thestrange doctrines, “that Heu Hing sows grain and eats theproduce. Is it not so?” “It is so,”was the answer. “I suppose that he also weaves cloth, andwears his own manufacture. Is it not so?” “No;Heu wears clothes of haircloth.” “Does he weara cap?” “He wears a cap.”“What kind of cap?” “A plaincap.” “Is it woven by himself?”“No; he gets it in exchange for grain.”“Why does Heu not weave it himself?”“That would injure his husbandry.”“Does Heu cook his food in boilers and earthen-ware pans,and does he plough with an iron share?”“Yes.” “Does he make those articleshimself?” “No; he gets them in exchange forgrain.” On these admissions Menciusproceeds:—“The getting those various articlesin exchange for grain is not oppressive to the potter and thefounder, and the potter and the founder in their turn, in exchangingtheir various articles for grain, are not oppressive to thehusbandman. How should such a thing be supposed? But why does notHeu, [on his principles,] act the potter andfounder, supplying himself with the articles which he uses solelyfrom his own establishment? Why does he go confusedly dealing andexchanging with the handicraftsmen? Why does he not spare himself somuch trouble?” His opponent attempted areply:—“The business of the handicraftsman canby no means be carried on along with the business ofhusbandry.” Mencius resumed:—“Then,is it the government of the empire which alone can be carried alongwith the practice of husbandry? Great men have their properbusiness, and little men have their proper business. Moreover, inthe case of any single individual, whatever articles he can requireare ready to his hand, being produced by the varioushandicraftsmen:—if he must first make them for his ownuse, this way of doing would keep all the people running about uponthe roads. Hence there is the saying:—‘Somemen labour with their minds, and some with their strength. Those wholabour with their minds govern others; those who labour with theirstrength are governed by others. Those who are governed by otherssupport them; those who govern others are supported bythem.’ This is a principle universallyrecognized.” [1]

Sir John Davis has observed that this is exactly Pope’sline,

“And those who think still govern thosewho toil.” [1]

Mencius goes on to illustrate it very clearly by referring tothe labours of Yaou and Shun. His opponent makes a feeble attempt at theend to say a word in favour of the new doctrines he hadembraced:—

“If Heu’s doctrines were followed there wouldnot be two prices in the market, nor any deceit in the kingdom. If aboy were sent to the market, no one would impose on him; linen andsilk of the same length would be of the same price. So it would bewith bundles of hemp and silk, being of the same weight: with thedifferent kinds of grain, being the same in quantity; and with shoeswhich were the same in size.” Mencius meets this with adecisive reply:—“It is the nature of things tobe of unequal quality; some are twice, some five times, some tentimes, some a hundred times, some a thousand times, some tenthousand times as valuable as others. If you reduce them all to thesame standard, that must throw the empire into confusion. If largeshoes were of the same price with small shoes, who would make them?For people to follow the doctrines of Heu would be for them to leadone another on to practise deceit. How can they avail for thegovernment of a State?”

There is only one other subject which I shall here notice, withMencius’ opinions upon it,—the position namely,which he occupied himself with reference to the princes of histime.     Mencius’ position as “aTeacher.”  He calls it that of“a Teacher,” but that term in our language veryinadequately represents it. He wished to meet with some ruler who wouldlook to him as “guide, philosopher, and friend,”regulating himself by his counsels, and thereafter committing to him theentire administration of his government. Such men, he insisted, therehad been in China from the earliest ages. Shun had been such to Yaou; Yuand Kaou Yaou had been such to Shun; E Yin had been such toT‘ang; T‘ae-kung Wang had been such to kingWăn; Chow-kung had been such to the kings Woo and Shing;Confucius might have been such to any prince who knew his merit;Tsze-sze was such, in a degree, to the dukes Hwuy of Pe and Muh ofLoo. [2] The wanderingscholars of his own day, who went from court to court, sometimes withgood intentions and sometimes with bad, pretended to this character; butMencius held them in abhorrence. Theydisgraced the character and prostituted it, and he stood forth as itsvindicator and true exemplifier.

Never did Christian priest lift up his mitred front, or show his shavencrown, or wear his Geneva gown, more loftily in courts and palaces thanMencius, the Teacher, demeaned himself. We have seen what strugglessometimes arose between him and the princes who would fain have had himbend to their power and place.

“Those,” said he, “who give counselto the great should despise them, and not look at their pomp anddisplay. Halls several fathoms high, with beams projecting severalcubits:—these, if my wishes were to be realized, I wouldnot have. Food spread before me over ten cubits square, andattendant girls to the amount of hundreds:—these, thoughmy wishes were realized, I would not have. Pleasure and wine, andthe dash of hunting, with thousands of chariots following afterme:—these, though my wishes were realized, I would nothave. What they esteem are what I would have nothing to do with;what I esteem are the rules of the ancients.—Why should Istand in awe of them?” [1]

Before we bring a charge of pride against Mencius on account of thislanguage and his conduct in accordance with it, we must bear in mindthat the literati in China do in reality occupy the place of priests andministers in Christian kingdoms. Sovereign and people have to seek thelaw at their lips. The ground on which theystand,—“the rules of theancients,”—affords but poor footing compared withthe Word of God; still it is to them the truth, the unalterable law oflife and duty, and, as the expounders of it, they have to maintain adignity which will not compromise its claims. That “scholarsare the first and head of the four classes of the people,” isa maxim universally admitted. I do desiderate in Mencius any approach tohumility of soul, but I would not draw my illustrations of the defectfrom the boldness of his speech and deportment as “aTeacher.”

The charge against him ofliving on the princes.  But in one respect I am notsure but that our philosopher failed to act worthy of the characterwhich he thus assumed. The great men to whom he was in the habit ofreferring as his patterns nearly all rose from deep poverty to theirsubsequent eminence.

“Shun rose to the Empire from among the channeled fields;Foo Yueh was called to office from the midst of his building-frames:Kaou Kih from his fish and salt” [1] “E Yinwas a farmer in Sin. When T‘ang sent persons withpresents of silk, to entreat him to enter his service, he said, withan air of indifference and self-satisfaction, ‘What can Ido with those silks with which T‘ang invites me? Is itnot best for me to abide in the channeled fields, and there delightmyself with the principles of Yaou and Shun?’” [2]

It does not appear that any of those worthies accepted favours while theywere not in office, or from men whom they disapproved. With Mencius itwas very different: he took largely from the princes whom he lecturedand denounced. Possibly he might plead in justification the example ofConfucius, but he carried the practice to a greater extent than thatsage had ever done,—to an extent which staggered even his owndisciples and elicited their frequent inquiries. Forinstance:—

P‘ang Kăng asked him, saying, “Is itnot an extravagant procedure to go from one prince to another andlive upon them, followed by several tens of carriages, and attendedby several hundred men?” Mencius replied, “Ifthere be not a proper ground for taking it, a single bamboo-cup ofrice may not be received from a man. If there be such a properground, then Shun’s receiving the empire from Yaou is notto be considered excessive. Do you think it wasexcessive?” “No,” said the other,“but for a scholar performing no service to receive hissupport notwithstanding is improper.” Mencius answered,“If you do not have an intercommunication of theproductions of labour, and an interchange of men’sservices, so that one from his overplus may supply the deficiency ofanother, then husbandmen will have a superfluity of grain, and womenwill have a superfluity of cloth. If you have such an interchange,carpenters and carriage-wrights may all get their food from you.Here now is a man who, at home, is filial, and, abroad, respectfulto his elders, and who watches over the principles of the ancientkings, awaiting the rise of future learners;—and yet youwill refuse to support him. How is it that you give honour to thecarpenter and carriage-wright, and slight him who practisesbenevolence and righteousness?” P‘angKăng said, “The aim of the carpenter andcarriage-wright is by their trades to seek for a living. Is it alsothe aim of the superior man in his practice of principles to seekfor a living?” “What have you todo,” returned Mencius, “with his purpose? Heis of service to you. He deserves to be supported, and should besupported. And let me ask—Do you remunerate aman’s intention, or do you remunerate hisservice?” To this Kăng replied, “Iremunerate his intention.” Mencius said,“There is a man here who breaks your tiles and drawsunsightly figures on your walls;—his purpose may bethereby to seek for his living, but will you indeed remuneratehim?” “No,” said Kăng;and Mencius then concluded: “That being the case, it isnot the purpose which you remunerate, but the workdone.” [3]

The ingenuity of Mencius in the above conversation will not bequestioned. The position from which he starts in his defence, thatsociety is based on a division of labour and an interchange of services,is sound, and he fairly hits and overthrows his disciples on the pointthat we remunerate a man not for his aim but for his work done. But hedoes not quite meet the charge against himself. This will better appearfrom another brief conversation with Kung-sun Ch‘ow on thesame subject.

“It is said, in the Book of Poetry,” observedChow,

- “ ‘He will not eat the bread ofidleness’

How is it that we see superior men eating withoutlabouring?” Mencius replied, “When a superiorman resides in a country, if the sovereign employ his counsels, hecomes to tranquillity, wealth, honour, and glory; if the young in itfollow his instructions, they become filial, obedient to theirelders, true-hearted, and faithful.—What greater examplecan there be than this of not eating the bread ofidleness?” [1]

The argument here is based on the supposition that the superior man hasfree course, is appreciated by the sovereign, and venerated and obeyedby the people. But this never was the case with Mencius. Only once, theshort time that he was in T‘ăng, did a rulerlisten favourably to his counsels. His lessons, it may be granted, werecalculated to be of the greatest benefit to the communities where hewas, but it is difficult to see the “work done,”for which he could claim the remuneration. His reasoning might very wellbe applied to vindicate a government’s extending itspatronage to literary men, where it recognized in a general way theadvantages to be derived from their pursuits. Still more does it accordwith that employed in western nations where ecclesiasticalestablishments form one of the institutions of a country. The membersbelonging to them must have their maintenance, independently of thepersonal character of the rulers. But Mencius’ position wasmore that of a reformer. His claims were of those of his personal merit.It seems to me that P‘ang Kăng had reason to doubtthe propriety of his course, and characterize it as extravagant.

Another disciple, Wan Chang, pressed him very closely with theinconsistency of his taking freely the gifts of the princes on whom hewas wont to pass sentence so roundly. Menciushad insisted that, where the donor offered his gift on a ground ofreason and in a manner accordant with propriety, even Confucius wouldhave received it.

“Here now,” said Chang, “is one whostops and robs people outside the city-gates. He offers his gift ona ground of reason and in a proper manner;—would it beright to receive it so acquired by robbery?” Thephilosopher of course said it would not, and the otherpursued:—“The rulers of the present day takefrom their people just as a robber despoils his victim. Yet if theyput a good face of propriety on their gifts, the superior manreceives them. I venture to ask you to explain this.”Mencius answered:—“Do you think that, if thereshould arise a truly royal sovereign, he would collect the rulers ofthe present day and put them all to death? Or would he admonishthem, and then, on their not changing their ways, put them to death?Indeed to call every one who takes what does not properly belong tohim a robber, is pushing a point of resemblance to the utmost, andinsisting on the most refined idea of righteousness.” [1]

Here again we must admire the ingenuity of Mencius; but it amuses us morethan it satisfies. It was very well for him to maintain his dignity as“a Teacher,” and not go to the princes when theycalled him, but his refusal would have had more weight, if he had kepthis hands clean from all their offerings. I have said above that if lessawe-ful than Confucius, he is more admirable. Perhaps it would be betterto say he is more brilliant. There is some truth in the saying of thescholar Ch‘ing, that the one is the glass that glitters, andthe other the gem that is truly valuable.

Without dwelling on other characteristics of Mencius, or culling from himother striking sayings,—of which there are many,—Iproceed to exhibit and discuss his doctrine of the goodness of humannature.

6. If the remarks which I havejust made on the intercourse of Mencius with the princes of his day havelowered him somewhat in the estimation of my readers, his doctrine ofhuman nature, and the force with which he advocates it, will not fail toproduce a high appreciation of him as a moralist and thinker.     Mencius’ view ofhuman nature; its identity with that of BishopButler.  In concluding my exhibition of the opinions ofConfucius in the former volume, I have observed that “hethrew no light on any of the questions which have a worldwideinterest.” This Mencius did. The constitution ofman’s nature, and how far it supplies to him a rule ofconduct and a law of duty, are inquiries thanwhich there can hardly be any others of more importance. They werelargely discussed in the Schools of Greece. A hundred vigorous and acuteminds of modern Europe have occupied themselves with them. It willhardly be questioned in England that the palm for clear and justthinking on the subject belongs to Bishop Butler, but it will presentlybe seen that his views and those of Mencius are, as nearly as possible,identical. There is a difference of nomenclature and a combination ofparts, in which the advantage is with the Christian prelate. Felicity ofillustration and charm of style belong to the Chinese philosopher. Thedoctrine in both is the same.

The utterances of Confucius on the subject of our nature were few andbrief. The most remarkable is where he says:—“Manis born for uprightness.     View of Confucius.  If a man be withoutuprightness and yet live, his escape [from death]is the effect of mere good fortune.” [1] This is in entireaccordance with Mencius’ view, and as he appeals to the sagein his own support, [2] though wecannot elsewhere find the words which he quotes, we may believe thatConfucius would have approved of the sentiments of his follower, andfrowned on those who have employed some of his sayings in confirmationof other conclusions. [3] Iam satisfied in my own mind on this point. His repeated enunciation of“the golden rule,” though only in a negative form,is sufficient evidence of it.

The opening sentence of “The Doctrine of theMean,”—“What Heaven has conferred iscalled THE NATURE;     View of Tsze-sze.  an accordancewith this nature is called THE PATH; the regulationof the path is called INSTRUCTION, ” findsa much better illustration from Mencius than from Tsze-sze himself. Thegerm of his doctrine lies in it. We saw reason to discard the notionthat he was a pupil of Tsze-sze; but he was acquainted with his treatisejust named, and as he has used some other parts of it, we may besurprised that in his discussions on human nature he has made noreference to the above passage.

What gave occasion to his dwelling largely on the theme was theprevalence of wild and injurious speculations about it. In nothing did the disorder of the age more appear.Kung-too, one of his disciples, once went to him andsaid:—     Prevalent view of man’s nature inMencius’ time.

“The philosopher Kaousays:—‘Man’s nature is neither goodnor bad.’ Somesay:—‘Man’s nature may be made topractise good, and it may be made to practise evil; and accordingly,under Wăn and Woo, the people loved what was good, while,under Yew and Le, they loved what was cruel.’ Otherssay:—‘The nature of some is good, and thenature of others is bad. Hence it was that under such a sovereign asYaou there yet appeared Sëang; that with such a father asKoo-sow there yet appeared Shun; and that with Chow for theirsovereign, and the son of their elder brother besides, there werefound K‘e, the viscount of Wei, and the princePe-kan.’ And now you say:—‘Thenature is good.’ Then are all those opinionswrong?” [1]

“The nature of man is good:”—this wasMencius’ doctrine. By many writers it has been represented asentirely antagonistic to Christianity; and, as thus broadly and brieflyenunciated, it sounds startling enough. As fully explained by himself,however, it is not so very terrible. Butler’s scheme has beendesignated “the system of Zeno baptized intoChrist.” [2] That of Mencius, identifying closelywith the master of the Porch, is yet more susceptible of a similartransformation.

But before endeavouring to make this statement good, it will be well tomake some observations on the opinion of the philosopher Kaou.     View of the philosopherKaou.  He was a contemporary of Mencius, and they cameinto argumentative collision. One does not see immediately thedifference between his opinion, as stated by Kung-too, and the next.Might not man’s nature, though neither good nor bad, be madeto practise the one or the other? Kaou’s view went to denyany essential distinction between good and evil,—virtue andvice. A man might be made to act in a way commonly called virtue and ina way commonly called evil, but in the one action there was reallynothing more approvable than in the other. “Life,”he said, “was what was meant by nature.” [3] The phenomena of benevolence and righteousness wereakin to those of walking and sleeping, eating and seeing. Thisextravagance afforded scope for Mencius’ favourite mode ofargument, the reductio ad absurdum. He showed, onKaou’s principles, that“the nature of a dog was like the nature of an ox, and thenature of an ox like the nature of a man.”

The two first conversations [1] between them are moreparticularly worthy of attention, because, while they are a confutationof his opponent, they indicate clearly our philosopher’s owntheory.     Mencius’ exposure of Kaou’s errors,and statement of his own doctrine.  Kaou comparedman’s nature to a willow tree, and benevolence andrighteousness to the cups and bowls that might be fashioned from itswood. Mencius replied that it was not the nature of the willow toproduce cups and bowls; they might be made from it indeed, by bendingand cutting and otherwise injuring it; but must humanity be done suchviolence to in order to fashion the virtues from it? Kaou again comparedthe nature to water whirling round in a corner;—open apassage for it in any direction, and it will flow forth accordingly.“Man’s nature,” said he, “isindifferent to good and evil, just as the water is indifferent to theeast and west.” Mencius answeredhim:—“Water indeed will flow indifferently to theeast or west, but will it flow indifferently up or down? The tendency ofman’s nature to good is like the tendency of water to flowdownwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as allwater flows downwards. By striking water and causing it to leap up, youmay make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it, youmay force it up a hill; but are such movements according to the natureof water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are madeto do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in thisway.”

Mencius has no stronger language than this, as indeed it would bedifficult to find any stronger, to declare his belief in the goodness ofhuman nature. To many Christian readers it proves a stumbling-block andoffence. But I venture to think that this is without sufficient reason.He is speaking of our nature in its ideal, and not as it actuallyis,—as we may ascertain from the study of it that it ought tobe, and not as it is made to become. My rendering of the sentences lastquoted may be objected to, because of my introduction of the term tendency; but I have Mencius’ expresssanction for the representation I give of his meaning. Replying toKung-too’s question, whether all the other opinions prevalentabout man’s nature were wrong, and his own, that it is good,correct, he said:—“Fromthe feelings proper to it, we see that it is constituted for thepractice of what is good. This is what I mean in sayingthat the nature is good. If men do what is not good, the blamecannot be imputed to their natural powers.” [1] Those who find the most fault with him, will hardlyquestion the truth of this last declaration. When a man does wrong,whose is the blame,—the sin? He might be glad to roll theguilt on his Maker, or upon his nature,—which is only anindirect charging of his Maker with it;—but it is his ownburden, which he must bear himself.

The proof by which Mencius supports his view of human nature as formedonly for virtue is twofold.     Proofs that human nature is formed forvirtue—First, from its moral constituents.  First, he maintains that there are in man a natural principle ofbenevolence, a natural principle of righteousness, a natural principleof propriety, and a natural principle of apprehending moral truth.“These,” he says, “are not infused intous from without. We are certainly possessed of them; and a differentview is simply from want of reflection.” [2] In furtherillustration of this he argued thus:—

“All men have a mind which cannot bear to see thesufferings of others. My meaning may be illustratedthus:—Even now-a-days,” i.e., in these degenerate times, “if men suddenlysee a child about to fall into a well, they will without exceptionexperience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, notas a ground on which they may gain the favour of thechild’s parents, nor as a ground on which they may seekthe praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike tothe reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From thiscase we may see that the feeling of commiseration is essential toman, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, thatthe feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, andthat the feeling of approval and disapproval is essential to man.These feelings are the principles respectively of benevolence,righteousness, propriety, and the knowledge [of good andevil]. Men have these four principles just as they havetheir four limbs.” [3]

Let all this be compared with the language of Butler in his three famous Sermons upon Human Nature. He shows in thefirst of these:—“First, that there is a naturalprinciple of benevolence in man; secondly, that the several passions and affections, whichare distinct both from benevolence and self-love, do in generalcontribute and lead us to public good as really asto private; and thirdly, that there is aprinciple of reflection in men, by which they distinguish between,approve and disapprove, their own actions.” [1] Is there anything more in this than wasapprehended and expressed by Mencius? Butler says in the conclusion ofhis first discourse that “men follow their nature to acertain degree but not entirely; their actions do not come up to thewhole of what their nature leads them to; and they often violate theirnature.” This also Mencius declares in his own forcefulmanner:—“When men having these four principles,yet say of themselves that they cannot develope them, they play thethief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannotdevelope them, plays the thief with his prince.” [2] “Men differ from one another in regard tothe principles of their nature;—some as much again as others,some five times as much, and some to an incalculableamount:—it is because they cannot carry out fully theirnatural powers.” [3]

So much for the first or preliminary view of human nature insisted on byMencius, that it contains principles which are disinterested andvirtuous. But there wants something more to make good the position thatvirtue ought to be supreme,     Second proof that human nature is formedfor virtue:—that it is a constitution, where thehigher principles should rule the lower.  and that itis for it, in opposition to vice, that our nature is formed. To use someof the “licentious talk” which Butler puts intothe mouth of an opponent:—“Virtue and religionrequire not only that we do good to others, when we are led this way, bybenevolence and reflection happening to be stronger than otherprinciples, passions, or appetites; but likewise that the whole character be formed upon thought andreflection; that every action be directed by somedeterminate rule, some other rule than the strength or prevalence of anyprinciple or passion. What sign is there in our nature (for the inquiryis only about what is to be collected from thence) that this wasintended by its Author? Or how does so various and fickle a temper asthat of man appear adapted thereto? . . . . As brutes have variousinstincts, by which they are carried on to the end the Author of theirnature intended them for, is not man in the same condition, with thisdifference only, that to his instincts ( i.e., appetites and passions) is added the principle of reflection orconscience? And as brutes act agreeably to their nature in followingthat principle or particular instinct which for the present is strongestin them; does not man likewise act agreeably to his nature, or obey thelaw of his creation, by following that principle, be it passion orconscience, which for the present happens to be strongest in him? . . .. . Let every one then quietly follow his nature; as passion,reflection, appetite, the several parts of it, happen to be thestrongest; but let not the man of virtue take it upon him to blame theambitious, the covetous, the dissolute; since these, equally with him,obey and follow their nature.” [1]

To all this Butler replies by showing that the principle of reflection orconscience is “not to be considered merely as a principle inthe heart, which is to have some influence as well as others, but as afaculty, in kind and in nature, supreme over all others, and which bearsits own authority of being so;” that the difference betweenthis and the other constituents of human nature is not “adifference in strength or degree,” but “adifference in nature and in kind; ” that“it was placed within to be our proper governor; to directand regulate all under principles, passionsand motives of action:—this is its right and office; thussacred is its authority.” It follows from the view of humannature thus established, that “the inward frame of man is a system or constitution; whose several parts areunited, not by a physical principle of individuation, but by therespects they have to each other, the chief of which is the subjectionwhich the appetites, passions, and particular affections have to the onesupreme principle of reflection or conscience.” [1]

Now, the substance of this reasoning is to be foundin Mencius. Human nature—the inward frame ofman—is with him a system or constitution as much as with Butler. He says, for instance:—

“There is no part of himself which a man does not love;and as he loves all, so he should nourish all. There is not an inchof skin which he does not love, and so there is not an inch of skinwhich he will not nourish. FOR EXAMINING WHETHER HISWAY OF NOURISHING BE GOOD OR NOT, WHAT OTHER RULE IS THERE BUTTHIS, THAT HE DETERMINE BY REFLECTING ON HIMSELF WHERE IT SHOULDBE APPLIED?

“Some parts of the body are noble, and some ignoble; somegreat and some small. The great must not be injured for the small,nor the noble for the ignoble. He who nourishes the little belongingto him is a little man, and he who nourishes the great is a greatman.” [2]

Again:—

“Those who follow that part of themselves which is greatare great men, those who follow that part which is little are littlemen.” [3]

The great part of ourselves is the moral elements of our constitution;the lower part is the appetites and passions that centre in self. Hesays finely:—

“There is a nobility of Heaven, and there is a nobility ofman. Benevolence, righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity,with unwearied joy in the goodness [of thesevirtues]:—these constitute the nobility ofHeaven. To be a duke, a minister, or a greatofficer;—this constitutes the nobility ofman.” [4]

There is one passage very striking:—

“For the mouth to desire tastes, the eye colours, the earsounds, the nose odours, and the four limbs ease andrest:—these things are natural. But there is theappointment [of Heaven] in connexion withthem; and the superior man does not say [in his pursuitof them], ‘It is my nature.’ [The exercise of]love between father and son, [the observanceof] righteousness between ruler and minister, the rulesof ceremony between host and guest, the [displayof] knowledge in [recognizing] theable and virtuous, and [the fulfilling] theheavenly course by the sage:—these are appointed[by Heaven]. But there is [anadaptation of our] nature [forthem]; and the superior man does not say, [inreference to them,] ‘There is a[limiting] appointment [ofHeaven].’ ” [1]

From these paragraphs it is quite clear that what Mencius considered asdeserving properly to be called the nature of man, was not that by whichhe is a creature of appetites and passions, but that by which he islifted up into the higher circle of intelligence and virtue. By thephrase, “the appointment of Heaven,” most Chinesescholars understand the will of Heaven, limiting in the first case thegratification of the appetites, and in the second the exercise of thevirtues. To such limitation Mencius teaches there ought to be a cheerfulsubmission so far as the appetites are concerned, but where the virtuesare in question, we are to be striving after them notwithstandingadverse and opposing circumstances. THEY ARE OURNATURE, what we were made for, what we have to do. I will referbut to one other specimen of his teaching on this subject.“The will,” he said, using that term for thehigher moral nature in activity,—“the will is theleader of the passion-nature. The passion-nature pervades and animatesthe body. The will is first and chief, and the passion-nature issubordinate to it.” [2]

My readers can now judge for themselves whether I exaggerated at all insaying that Mencius’ doctrine of human nature was, as nearlyas possible, identical with that of Bishop Butler. Sir James Mackintoshhas said of the sermons to which I have made reference, and his othercognate discourses, that in them Butler “taught truths morecapable of being exactly distinguished from the doctrines of hispredecessors, more satisfactorily established by him, morecomprehensively applied to particulars, more rationally connected witheach other, and therefore more worthy of the name of discovery, than any with which we are acquainted; if we oughtnot, with some hesitation, to except the first steps of the Grecianphilosophers towards a Theory of Morals.” [3] It is to bewished that the attention of this greatscholar had been called to the writings of our philosopher. Mencius wassenior to Zeno, though a portion of their lives synchronized. Butlercertainly was not indebted to him for the views which he advocated; butit seems to me that Mencius had left him nothing to discover.

But the question now arises—“Is the view of humannature propounded by Mencius correct?” So far as yet appears,I see not how the question can be answered otherwise than in theaffirmative. Man was formed for virtue.     The proper use of Mencius’views thus far considered.  Be it that his conduct isvery far from being conformed to virtue, that simply fastens on him theshame of guilt. Fallen as he may be,—fallen as I believe andknow he is,—his nature still bears its testimony, whenproperly interrogated, against all unrighteousness. Man, heathen man, a Gentile without the law, is still a law tohimself. So the apostle Paul affirms; and to no moral teacherof Greece or Rome can we appeal for so grand an illustration of theaverment as we find in Mencius. I would ask those whom his sayingsoffend, whether it would have been better for his countrymen if he hadtaught a contrary doctrine, and told them that man’s natureis bad, and that the more they obeyed all its lusts and passions, themore would they be in accordance with it, and the more pursuing theright path? Such a question does not need a reply. The proper use ofMencius’ principles is to reprove the Chinese—andourselves as well—of the thousand acts of sin of which theyand we are guilty, that come within their sweep and under theircondemnation.

From the ideal of man to his actualism there is a vast descent. Betweenwhat he ought to be and what he is, the contrast is melancholy.     How Mencius admitted muchactual evil, and how he accounted for it  “ Benevolence, ” said ourphilosopher, “is the characteristic of man.” [1] It is “the wide house in which the worldshould dwell,” while propriety is“the correct position in which the world should ever befound,” and righteousness is“the great path which men should ever bepursuing.” [2] In opposition tothis, however, hatred, improprieties, unrighteousness, are constantphenomena of human life. We find men hateful and hating one another,quenching the light that is in them, and walking in darkness to performall deeds of shame. “There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” Mencius wouldhave denied this last sentence, claiming that the sages should beexcepted from it; but he is ready enough to admit the fact that men ingeneral do evil and violate the law of their nature. They sacrifice thenoble portion of themselves for the gratification of the ignoble; theyfollow that part which is little, and not that which is great. He cansay nothing further in explanation of the fact. He points out indeed theeffect of injurious circumstances, and the power of evil example; and hehas said several things on these subjects worthy ofnotice:—

“It is not to be wondered at that the king is not wise!Suppose the case of the most easily growing thing in theworld;—if you let it have one day’s genialheat, and then expose it for ten days to cold, it will not be ableto grow. It is but seldom that I have an audience of the king, andwhen I retire, there come all those who act upon him like the cold.Though I succeed in bringing out some buds of goodness, of whatavail is it?” [1] “In goodyears the children of the people are most of them good, while in badyears the most of them abandon themselves to evil. It is not owingto their natural powers conferred on them by Heaven that they arethus different:—the abandonment is owing to thecircumstances through which they allow their minds to be ensnaredand drowned in evil. There now is barley:—let it be sownand covered up; the ground being the same, and the time of sowinglikewise the same, it grows rapidly up, and when the full time iscome, it is all found to be ripe. Although there may be inequalities[of produce], that is owing to [thedifference of] the soil as rich or poor, the unequalnourishment afforded by the rains and dews, and to the differentways in which man has performed his business.” [2]

The inconsistencies in human conduct did not escape his observation.After showing that there is that in human nature which will sometimesmake men part with life sooner than with righteousness, he goeson:—“And yet a man will accept of ten thousand chung without any consideration of propriety andrighteousness. What can they add to him? When he takes them, is it notthat he may obtain beautiful mansions, that he may secure the servicesof wives and concubines, or that the poor and needy may be helped byhim?” The scalpel is used here with a bold and skilful hand.The lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of lifeare laid bare, nor does he stop till he has exposed the subtle workingsof the delusion that the end may sanctify the means, that evil may bewrought that good may come. He pursues:—“In theformer case the offered bounty was notreceived though it would have saved from death, and now the emolument istaken for the sake of beautiful mansions. The bounty that would havepreserved from death was not received, and the emolument is taken to getthe services of wives and concubines. The bounty that would have savedfrom death was not received, and the emolument is taken thatone’s poor and needy acquaintance may be helped. Was it thennot possible likewise to decline this? This is a case of what iscalled—‘Losing the proper nature ofone’s mind.’ ” [1]

To the principle implied in the concluding sentences of this quotationMencius most pertinaciously adheres.     Original badness cannot be predicated fromactual evil.  He will not allow that original badnesscan be predicated of human nature from any amount of actualwickedness.

“The trees.” said he, “of theNëw mountain were once beautiful Being situated, however,in the suburbs of [the capital of] a largeState, they were hewn down with axes and bills:—and couldthey retain their beauty? Still, through the growth from thevegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of therain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springingforth;—but then came the cattle and goats, and browsedupon them. To these things is owing the bare and stript appearance[of the mountain], and when people see thisthey think it was never finely wooded. But is this the proper natureof the mountain? And so even of what properly belongs toman:—shall it be said that the mind [of anyman] was without benevolence and righteousness? The wayin which a man loses his proper goodness of mind is like the way inwhich those trees were denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down dayafter day, can the mind retain its excellence? But there is somegrowth of its life day and night, and in the[calm] air of the morning, just between nightand day, the mind feels in a degree the desires and aversions whichare proper to humanity; but the feeling is not strong, and then itis fettered and destroyed by what the man does during the day. Thisfettering takes place again and again; the restorative influence ofthe night is not sufficient to preserve [the propergoodness of the mind]; and when this proves insufficientfor that purpose, the nature becomes not much different from that ofthe irrational animals, and when people see this, they think that itnever had those powers [which I assert]. Butdoes this condition represent the feelings proper tohumanity?” [2]

Up to this point I fail to perceive anything in Mencius’ viewof human nature that is contrary to the teachings of our ChristianScriptures, and that may not be employed with advantage by themissionary in preaching the Gospel to theChinese. It is far from covering what we know to be the whole duty ofman, yet it is defective rather than erroneous. Deferring anyconsideration of this for a brief space, I now inquire whether Mencius,having an ideal of the goodness of human nature, held also that it hadbeen and could be realized? The answer is that he did.     The actual perfection of thesages, and possible perfection of all.  The actualrealization he found in the sages, and he contended that it was withinthe reach of every individual.

“All things which are the same in kind,” hesays, “are like one another;—why should wedoubt in regard to man, as if he were a solitary exception to this?The sage and we are the same in kind. The feet, the mouths, the eyesof the sages were not different from those of other people, neitherwere their minds.” [1] “Is it so,” he was once asked,“that all men may be Yaous and Shuns?” and heanswered, “It is,” adding by way ofexplanation:—“To walk slowly, keeping behindhis elders, is to perform the part of a younger brother, and to walkquickly and precede his elders is to violate that duty. Now, is itwhat a man cannot do,—to walk slowly? ITIS WHAT HE DOES NOT DO. The course of Yaou and Shun wassimply that of filial piety and fraternal duty. Do you wear theclothes of Yaou, repeat the words of Yaou, and do the actions ofYaou;—and you will just be a Yaou.” [2]

Among the sages, however, Mencius made a distinction. Yaou and Shunexceeded all the rest, unless it might be Confucius. Those three nevercame short of, never went beyond, the law of their nature. The ideal andthe actual were in them always one and the same. The others had onlyattained to perfection by vigorous effort and culture. Twice at least hehas told us this. “Yaou and Shun were what they were bynature; T‘ang and Woo were so by returning [tonatural virtue].” [3] The actual result, however, was the same, and therefore he could holdthem all up as models to his countrymen of the style of man that theyought to be and might be. What the compass and square were in the handsof the workman, enabling him to form perfect circles and squares, thatthe sages, “perfectly exhibiting the humanrelations,” might be to every earnest individual, enablinghim to perfect himself as they were perfect. [4]

Here we feel that the doctrine of Mencius wants an element whichRevelation supplies. He knows nothing of thefact that “by one man sin entered into the world, and deathby sin; and so death passed” (passed on, extended,διη̑λθεν)“to all men, because all sinned.”     Mencius’ doctrinecontains no acknowledgement of the universal proneness to evil.His ideal has been realized by sages, and may be realized byall.  We have our ideal as well as he; but for theliving reality of it we must go back to Adam, as he was made by God inHis own image, after His likeness. In him the model is soon shattered,and we do not discover it again, till God’s own Son appearsin the world, made in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin.While He died for our transgressions, He left us also an example, thatwe should walk in His steps; and as we do so, we are carried on to gloryand virtue. At the same time we find a law in our members warringagainst the law in our minds, and bringing us into captivity to sin.However we may strive after our ideal, we do not succeed in reaching it.The more we grow in the knowledge of Christ, and see in Him the glory ofhumanity in its true estate, the greater do we feel our own distance tobe from it, and that of ourselves we cannot attain to it. There issomething wrong about us; we need help from without in order to becomeeven what our nature, apart from Revelation, tells us we ought tobe.

When Mencius therefore points us to Yaou, Shun, and Confucius, and saysthat they were perfect, we cannot accept his statement. Understandingthat he is speaking of them only in the sphere of human relations, wemust yet believe that in many things they came short. One of them, thegreatest of the three in Mencius’ estimation, Confucius,again and again confesses so of himself. He was seventy years old, hesays, before he could follow what his heart desired withouttransgressing what was right. [1] It might have beenpossible to convince the sage that he was under a delusion in thisimportant matter even at that advanced age; but what his language allowsis sufficient to upset Mencius’ appeal to him. The image ofsagely perfection is broken by it. It proves to be but a brilliant andunsubstantial phantasm of our philosopher’s ownimagining.

When he insists again, that every individual may become what he fanciesthat the sages were,— i.e., perfect,living in love, walking in righteousness, observant of propriety,approving whatsoever is good, and disapproving whatever is evil,—he is pushing his doctrinebeyond its proper limits; he is making a use of it of which it is notcapable. It supplies a law of conduct, and I have set it forth asentitled to our highest admiration for the manner in which it does so;but law only gives the knowledge of what we are required todo:—it does not give the power to do it. We have seen howwhen it was necessary to explain accurately his statement that thenature of man is good, Mencius defined it as meaning that “itis constituted for the practice of that which is good.”Because it is so constituted, it follows that every man ought topractise what is good. But some disorganization may have happened to thenature; some sad change may have come over it. The very fact that manhas, in Mencius’ own words, to recover his “lostmind,” [1] shows that the objectof the constitution of the nature has not been realized. Whether he canrecover it or not, therefore, is a question altogether different fromthat of its proper design.

In one place, indeed, Mencius has said that “the great man ishe who does not lose his child’s-heart.” [2] I can only suppose that, by thatexpression—“thechild’s-heart,” he intends the ideal goodnesswhich he affirms of our nature. But to attribute that to the child asactually existing in it is absurd. It has neither done good nor evil. Itpossesses the capacity for either. It will by and by awake to theconsciousness that it ought to follow after the one, and eschew theother; but when it does so,—I should rather say when he does so, for the child has now emerged from amere creature existence, and assumed the functions of a moral being, hewill find that he has already given himself to inordinate affection forthe objects of sense; and in the pursuit of gratification he is recklessof what must be acknowledged to be the better and nobler part, recklessalso of the interest and claims of others, and whenever thwarted glowsinto passion and fury. The youth is more pliant than the man in whom thedominion of self-seeking has become ingrained as a habit; but no soonerdoes he become a subject of law, than he is aware of the fact, that whenhe would do good, evil is present with him. The boy has to go in searchof his “lost heart,” as truly as the man offourscore. Even in him there is an “old man, corruptaccording to the deceitful lusts,” which he has to putoff.

Butler had an immense advantage over Mencius, arising from his knowledgeof the truths of Revelation. Many, admiring his sermons, have yetexpressed a measure of dissatisfaction, because he does not in them makeexplicit reference to the condition of man as fallen and depraved.     Butler’sadvantage over Mencius, and that he does not make the sameapplication of their common principles.  That he fullyadmitted the fact we know. He sayselsewhere:—“Mankind are represented in Scriptureto be in a state of ruin;” “If mankind arecorrupted and depraved in their moral character, and so are unfit forthat state which Christ is gone to prepare for his disciples; and if theassistance of God’s Spirit be necessary to renew theirnature, in the degree requisite to their being qualified for that state;all which is implied in the express, though figurative declaration, Except a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot see thekingdom of God. ” . . . . [1] How is it, then, that there is no mention of this in the sermons?Dissatisfaction, I have said, has been expressed on account of thissilence, and it would have taken the form of more pointed utterance, andmore decided condemnation, but for the awe of his great name, and thegeneral appreciation of the service he rendered to Christianity in hiswork on The Analogy of Religion to the Course ofNature. But, in truth, dissatisfaction at all is out of place.Butler wrote his sermons as he wrote his Analogy, in consequence of thepeculiar necessity of his times. More particularly against Hobbes,denying all moral sentiments and social affections, and making a regardto personal advantage the only motive of human action, it was hisbusiness to prove that man’s nature is of a very differentconstitution, comprehending disinterested affections, and above all thesupreme element of conscience, which, “had it strength as ithas right, would govern the world.” He proves this, and soaccomplishes his work. He had merely to do with the ideal of humanity.It did not belong to him to dwell on the actual feebleness of man toperform what is good. He might have added a few paragraphs to thiseffect; but it was not the character of his mind to go beyond the taskwhich he had set himself. What is of importance to be observed here is,that he does not make the application of their common principles whichMencius does. He knows of no perfect men; he does not tell his readersthat they have merely to set about followingtheir nature, and, without any aid from without, they will surely andeasily go on to perfection.

Mencius is not to be blamed for his ignorance of what is to us the Doctrine of the Fall. He had no means of becomingacquainted with it. We have to regret, however, that his study of humannature produced in him no deep feeling on accountof men’s proneness to go astray.     Mencius’ lacking in humilityand sympathy with human error.  He never betrays anyconsciousness of his own weakness. In this respect he is again inferiorto Confucius, and far from being, as I have said of him in anotheraspect of his character, “more admirable” than he.In the former volume I have shown that we may sometimes recognize inwhat the sage says of himself the expressions of a genuine humility. Heacknowledges that he comes short of what he knows he ought to be. We donot meet with this in Mencius. His merit is that of the speculativethinker. His glance is searching and his penetration deep; but there iswanting that moral sensibility which would draw us to him, in our bestmoments, as a man of like passions with ourselves. The absence ofhumility is naturally accompanied with a lack of sympathy. There is a hardness about his teachings. He is theprofessor, performing an operation in the class-room, amid a throng ofpupils who are admiring his science and dexterity, and who forgets inthe triumph of his skill the suffering of the patient. The transgressorsof their nature are to Mencius the “tyrants ofthemselves,” or “the self-abandoned.”The utmost stretch of his commiseration is a contemptuous“Alas for them!” [1] The radical defect of theorthodox moral school of China, that there only needs a knowledge ofduty to insure its performance, is in him exceedingly apparent.Confucius, Tsze-sze, and Mencius most strangely never thought of callingthis principle in question. It is always as in the formula ofTsze-sze:—“Given the sincerity, and there shall bethe intelligence; given the intelligence, and there shall be thesincerity.”

I said above that Mencius’ doctrine of human nature wasdefective, inasmuch as even his ideal does not cover the whole field ofduty. He says very little of what we owe to God. There is no glow ofnatural piety in his pages.     Mencius’ ideal of human nature does not embraceduty to God.  Instead of the name God, containing in itself a recognition of the divinepersonality and supremacy, we hear from himmore commonly, as from Confucius, of Heaven. Butlerhas said:—“By the love of God, I would understandall those regards, all those affections of mind, which are dueimmediately to Him from such a creature as man, and which rest in Him astheir end.” [1] Of such affections Mencius knowsnothing. In one place he speaks of “delighting inHeaven,” [2] but he is speaking,when he does so, of the sovereign who with a great State serves a smallone, and the delight is seen in certain condescensions to the weak andunworthy. Never once, where he is treating of the nature of man, does hemake mention of any exercise of the mind as due directly to God. Theservices of religion come in China under the principle of propriety, andare only a cold formalism; but, even here, other things come withMencius before them. We are told:—“The richestfruit of love is this,—the service of one’sparents; the richest fruit of righteousness is this,—theobeying one’s elder brothers; the richest fruit of wisdom isthis,—the knowing those two things, and not departing fromthem; the richest fruit of propriety is this,—the orderingand adorning those two things.” [3] How different is this from the reiterated declaration of the Scriptures,that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning ofwisdom!” The first and great commandment, “Thoushalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heartand soul and mind and strength,” was never thought of, muchless delivered, by any Chinese philosopher or sage. Had Menciusapprehended this, and seen how all our duties to our fellow-men are tobe performed as to God, he could not have thought so highly as he did ofman’s powers; a suspicion might have grown up that there is ashadow on the light which he has in himself.

This absence of the recognition of man’s highest obligationsfrom Mencius’ ideal of our nature is itself a striking illustration of man’s estrangementfrom God. His talking of Heaven has combined with the similar practiceof his master to prepare the way for the grosser conceptions of themodern literati, who would often seem to deny the divine personalityaltogether, and substitute for both God and Heaven a mere principle oforder or fitness of things. It has done more: it has left the people inthe mass to become an easy prey to the idolatrous fooleries of Buddhism.Yea, the unreligiousness of the teachers has helpedto deprave still more the religion of the nation, such as it is, andmakes its services a miserable pageant of irreverent forms.

It is time to have done with this portion of my theme. It may be thoughtthat I have done Mencius more than justice in the first part of myremarks, and less than justice at the last; but I hope it is not so. Avery important use is to be made both of what he succeeds in, and wherehe fails, in his discoursing upon human nature. His principles may be,and, I conceive, ought to be, turned against himself. They should bepressed to produce the conviction of sin. There is enough in them, ifthe conscience be but quickened by the Spirit of God, to make thehaughtiest scholar cry out, “O wretched man that I am! whoshall deliver me from this body of death?” Then may it besaid to him with effect, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takethaway the sin of the world!” Then may Christ, as a new andtrue exemplar of all that man should be, be displayed,“altogether lovely,” to the trembling mind! Thenmay a new heart be received from Him, that shallthrill in the acknowledgment of the claims both of men and God, andgirding up the loins of the mind, address itself to walk in all Hiscommandments and ordinances blameless! One thing should be plain. InMencius’ lessons on human duty there is no hope for hiscountrymen. If they serve as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ,they will have done their part; but it is from Christ alone that thehelp of the Chinese can come.

7. Besides giving more explicitexpression to the doctrine of the goodness of man’s naturethan had been done before him, Mencius has the credit also of callingattention to the nourishment of the passion-nature. It may be questioned whether I translate his language exactly by thisphrase. What I render the passion-nature, Julienrenders by “ vitalis spiritus. ” The philosopher says himselfthat it is difficult to describe what he intends. Attempting such adescription, he says:—“This is it:—Itis exceedingly great and exceedingly strong. Being nourished byrectitude, and sustaining no injury, it fills up all between heaven andearth. This is it:—It is the mate and assistant ofrighteousness and reason. Without it man is in a state of starvation. Itis produced by the accumulation of righteous deeds; it is not to betaken, as by surprise, by incidental acts of righteousness. If the minddoes not feel complacency in the conduct, this isstarved.” [1] Fromsuch predicates we may be sure that it is not anything merely orentirely physical of which he is speaking.“The righteous,” said Solomon, “arebold as a lion.” The Hebrew saying is very much inMencius’ style. That boldness is the result of the nourishment for which he thought he had a peculiaraptitude. Strong in it and in a knowledge of words, a faculty ofdiscovering the moral aberrations of others from their forms of speech,he was able to boast of possessing “an unperturbedmind;” he could “sit in the centre” ofhis being, “and enjoy bright day,” whatever cloudsand storms gathered around him.

The nourishment, therefore, of “thepassion-nature,” “the vital spirit,” orwhatever name we choose to give to the subject, is only an effect ofgeneral good-doing. This is the practical lesson from allMencius’ high-sounding words. He has illustrated itamusingly:—

“There was a man of Sung, who was grieved that his growingcorn was not longer, and pulled it up. Having done this, he returnedhome, looking very wearied, and said to his people, ‘I amtired to-day. I have been helping the corn to grow long.’His son ran to look at it, and found the corn all withered. Thereare few in the world, who do not assist the corn [oftheir passion-nature] to grow long. Some consider it ofno benefit to them, and let it alone:—they do not weedtheir corn. Those who assist it to grow long, pull out their corn.What they do is not only of no benefit to the nature, but it alsoinjures it.” [2]

This portion of Mencius’ teaching need not detain us. He hasput a simple truth in a striking way. That is his merit. It hardly seemsof sufficient importance to justify the use which has been made of it invindicating a place for him among the sages of his country.

8. I said I should end thediscussion of Mencius’ opinions by pointing out what Iconceive to be his chief defects as a moral and political teacher. Hisdefects, however, in the former respect have been already not lightlytouched on. So far as they were the consequence of his ignorance,without the light which Revelation sheds on the whole field of humanduty, and the sanctions, which it discloses, of a future state ofretribution, I do not advance any charge against his character. That henever indicates any wish to penetrate into futurity, and ascertain whatcomes after death; that he never indicates any consciousness of humanweakness, nor moves his mind Godward, longing for morelight:—these are things which exhibit strongly the contrastbetween the mind of the East and the West. His self-sufficiency is hisgreat fault. To know ourselves is commonly supposed to be an importantstep to humility; but it is not so with him. He has spoken remarkablyabout the effects of calamity and difficulties. Hesays:—“When Heaven is about to confer a greatoffice on a man, it first exercises his mind with suffering, and hissinews and bones with toil; it exposes his body to hunger, and subjectshim to extreme poverty; it confounds his undertakings. By all thesemethods it stimulates his mind, hardens his nature, and supplies hisincompetencies.” [1] Such have been theeffects of Heaven’s exercising some men with calamities; butif the issue has been a fitting for the highestoffices, there has been a softening of the nature rather than ahardening of it. Mencius was a stranger to the humbling of the loftylooks of man, and the bowing down his haughtiness, that the Lord alonemay be exalted.

His faults as a political teacher are substantially the same as those ofConfucius. More than was the case with his sayings of a politicalcharacter, the utterances of Mencius have reference to the condition andneeds of his own age. They were for the time then being, and not for alltime. He knew as little as Confucius of any other great and independentnation besides his own; and he has left one maxim which is deeplytreasured by the rulers and the people of China at the present day, andfeeds the supercilious idea which they are so unwilling to give up oftheir own superiority to foreigners. “I haveheard,” said he, “of menusing [the doctrines of] our great land to changebarbarians, but I have never yet heard of any being changed bybarbarians.” “I have heard of birds leaving darkvalleys to remove to lofty trees, but I have not heard of theirdescending from lofty trees to enter into dark valleys.” [1] Mongol and Tartar sway has not broken the charmof this dangerous flattery, because only in warlike energy were theMongols and Tartars superior to the Chinese, and when they conquered thecountry they did homage to its sages. During the last four-and-thirtyyears, Christian Powers have come to ask admission into China, and toclaim to be received as her equals. They do not wish to conquer herterritory, though they have battered and broken her defences. With fearand trembling their advances are contemplated. The feeling of dislike tothem arises from the dread of their power, and suspicion of their faith.It is feared that they come to subdue; it is known that they come tochange. The idol of Chinese superiority is about to be broken. Broken itmust be ere long, and a new generation of thinkers will arise, to whomMencius will be a study but not a guide.

APPENDIX.

I HAVE thought it would be interesting to manyreaders to append here the Essays of two distinguished scholars of Chinaon the subject of Human Nature. The one is in direct opposition toMencius’ doctrine; according to the other, his doctrine isinsufficient to explain the phenomena. The author of the first, SeunK‘ing, was not much posterior to Mencius. He is mentioned asin office under king Seang of Ts‘e ( BC 271-264), and he lived on to the times of theTs‘in dynasty. His Works which still remain form aconsiderable volume. The second essay is from the work of Han Yu,mentioned above, Ch. I. Sect. IV. 3. I shall not occupy any space withcriticisms on the style or sentiments of the writers. If the translationappear at times to be inelegant or obscure, the fault is perhaps as muchin the original as in myself. A comprehensive and able sketch of“The Ethics of the Chinese, with special reference to theDoctrines of Human Nature and Sin,” by the Rev. GriffithJohn, was read before the North-China Branch of the Royal AsiaticSociety, in November, 1859, and has been published separately. Theessays of Seun and Han are both reviewed in it.

I.: THAT THE NATURE IS EVIL.

BY THE PHILOSOPHER SEUN.

THE nature of man is evil; the good which itshows is factitious. There belongs to it, even at his birth, thelove of gain, and as actions are in accordance with this,contentions and robberies grow up, and self-denial and yielding toothers are not to be found; therebelong to it envy and dislike, and as actions are in accordance withthese, violence and injuries spring up, and self-devotedness andfaith are not to be found; there belong to it the desires of theears and the eyes, leading to the love of sounds and beauty, and asthe actions are in accordance with these, lewdness and disorderspring up, and righteousness and propriety, with their variousorderly displays, are not to be found. It thus appears, that thefollowing man’s nature and yielding obedience to itsfeelings will assuredly conduct to contentions and robberies, to theviolation of the duties belonging to every one’s lot, andthe confounding of all distinctions, till the issue will be in astate of savagism; and that there must be the influence of teachersand laws, and the guidance of propriety and righteousness, fromwhich will spring self-denial, yielding to others, and an observanceof the well-ordered regulations of conduct, till the issue will bein a state of good government.—From all this, it is plainthat the nature of man is evil; the good which it shows isfactitious.

To illustrate.—A crooked stick must be submitted to thepressing-frame, to soften and bend it, and then it becomes straight;a blunt knife must be submitted to the grindstone and whetstone, andthen it becomes sharp; so, the nature of man, being evil, must besubmitted to teachers and laws, and then it becomes correct; it mustbe submitted to propriety and righteousness, and then it comes undergovernment. If men were without teachers and laws, their conditionwould be one of deflection and insecurity, entirely incorrect; ifthey were without propriety and righteousness, their condition wouldbe one of rebellious disorder, rejecting all government. The sagekings of antiquity understanding that the nature of man was thusevil, in a state of hazardous deflection, and incorrect, rebelliousand disorderly, and refusing to be governed, they set up theprinciples of righteousness and propriety, and framed laws andregulations to straighten and ornament the feelings of that natureand correct them, to tame and change those same feelings and guidethem, so that they might all go forth in the way of moral governmentand in agreement with reason. Now, the man who is transformed byteachers and laws, gathers on himself the ornament of learning, andproceeds in the path of propriety andrighteousness, is a superior man; and he who gives the reins to hisnature and its feelings, indulges its resentments, and walkscontrary to propriety and righteousness, is a mean man. Looking atthe subject in this way, we see clearly that the nature of man isevil; the good which it shows is factitious.

Mencius said, “Man has only to learn, and his naturebecomes good;” but I reply,—It is not so. Tosay so shows that he had not attained to the knowledge ofman’s nature, nor examined into the difference betweenwhat is natural in man and what is factitious. The natural is whatthe constitution spontaneously moves to:—it needs not tobe learned, it needs not to be followed hard after; propriety andrighteousness are what the sages have given birth to:—itis by learning that men become capable of them, it is by hardpractice that they achieve them. That which is in man, not needingto be learned and striven after, is what I call natural; that in manwhich is attained to by learning, and achieved by hard striving, iswhat I call factitious. This is the distinction between those two.By the nature of man, the eyes are capable of seeing, and the earsare capable of hearing. But the power of seeing is inseparable fromthe eyes, and the power of hearing is inseparable from theears;—it is plain that the faculties of seeing andhearing do not need to be learned. Mencius says, “Thenature of man is good, but all lose and ruin their nature, andtherefore it becomes bad;” but I say that thisrepresentation is erroneous. Man being born with his nature, when hethereafter departs from its simple constituent elements, he mustlose it. From this consideration we may see clearly thatman’s nature is evil. What might be called thenature’s being good would be if there were no departingfrom its simplicity to beautify it, no departing from its elementarydispositions to sharpen it. Suppose that those simple elements nomore needed beautifying, and the mind’s thoughts no moreneeded to be turned to good, than the power of vision which isinseparable from the eyes, and the power of hearing which isinseparable from the ears, need to be learned, [then wemight say that the nature is good, just as] we say thatthe eyes see and the ears hear. It is the nature of man, whenhungry, to desire to be filled; when cold, to desire to be warmed;when tired, to desire rest:—these are the feelings and nature of man. But now, a man ishungry, and in the presence of an elder he does not dare to eatbefore him,—he is yielding to that elder; he is tiredwith labour, and he does not dare to ask for rest,—he isworking for some one. A son’s yielding to his father anda younger brother to his elder, a son’s labouring for hisfather and a younger brother for his elder,—these twoinstances of conduct are contrary to the nature and against thefeelings; but they are according to the course laid down for afilial son, and the refined distinctions of propriety andrighteousness. It appears that if there were an accordance with thefeelings and the nature, there would be no self-denial and yieldingto others. Self-denial and yielding to others are contrary to thefeelings and the nature. In this way we come to see how clear it isthat the nature of man is evil; the good which it shows isfactitious.

An inquirer will ask, “If man’s nature be evil,whence do propriety and righteousness arise?” Ireply,—All propriety and righteousness are the artificialproduction of the sages, and are not to be considered as growing outof the nature of man. It is just as when a potter makes a vesselfrom the clay;—the vessel is the product of theworkman’s art, and is not be considered as growing out ofhis nature. Or it is as when another workman cuts and hews a vesselout of wood;—it is the product of his art, and is not tobe considered as growing out of his nature. The sages pondered longin thought and gave themselves to practice, and so they succeeded inproducing propriety and righteousness, and setting up laws andregulations. Thus it is that propriety and righteousness, laws andregulations, are the artificial product of the sages, and are not tobe considered as growing properly from the nature of man.

If we speak of the fondness of the eyes for beauty, or of the mouthfor [pleasant] flavours, or of the mind forgain, or of the bones and skin for the enjoyment ofease;—all these grow out of the natural feelings of man.The object is presented and the desire is felt; there needs noeffort to produce it. But when the object is presented, and theaffection does not move till after hard effort, I say that thiseffect is factitious. Those cases prove the difference between whatis produced by nature and what is produced by art.

Thus the sages transformed their nature, and commenced theirartificial work. Having commenced this work with their nature, theyproduced propriety and righteousness. When propriety andrighteousness were produced, they proceeded to frame laws andregulations. It appears, therefore, that propriety andrighteousness, laws and regulations, were given birth to by thesages. Wherein they agree with all other men and do not differ fromthem, is their nature; wherein they differ from and exceed othermen, is this artificial work.

Now to love gain and desire to get;—this is the naturalfeeling of men. Suppose the case that there is an amount of propertyor money to be divided among brothers, and let this natural feelingto love gain and desire to get come into play;—why, thenthe brothers will be opposing, and snatching from one another. Butwhere the changing influence of propriety and righteousness, withtheir refined distinctions, has taken effect, a man will give up toany other man. Thus it is that if they act in accordance with theirnatural feelings, brothers will quarrel together; and if they havecome under the transforming influence of propriety andrighteousness, men will give up to other men, to say nothing ofbrothers. [Again], the fact that men WISH to do what is good, is because their natureis bad. The thin wishes to be thick; the ugly wishes to bebeautiful; the narrow wishes to be wide; the poor wish to be rich;the mean wish to be noble:—when anything is not possessedin one’s self, he seeks for it outside himself. But therich do not wish for wealth; the noble do not wish forposition:—when anything is possessed by one’sself, he does not need to go beyond himself for it. When we look atthings in this way, we perceive that the fact of men’s WISHING to do what is good is because theirnature is evil. It is the case, indeed, that man’s natureis without propriety and benevolence:—he thereforestudies them with vigorous effort and seeks to have them. It is thecase that by nature he does not know propriety andrighteousness:—he therefore thinks and reflects and seeksto know them. Speaking of man, therefore, as he is by birth simply,he is without propriety and righteousness, without the knowledge ofpropriety and righteousness. Without propriety and righteousness,man must be all confusion and disorder; without the knowledge ofpropriety and righteousness, there mustensue all the manifestations of disorder. Man, as he is born,therefore, has in him nothing but the elements of disorder, passiveand active. It is plain from this contemplation of the subject thatthe nature of man is evil; the good which it shows isfactitious.

When Mencius says that “Man’s nature isgood,” I affirm that it is not so. In ancient times andnow throughout the empire, what is meant by good is a condition ofcorrectness, regulation, and happy government; and what is meant byevil, is a condition of deflection, insecurity, and refusing to beunder government:—in this lies the distinction betweenbeing good and being evil. And now, if man’s nature bereally so correct, regulated, and happily governed in itself, wherewould be the use for sage kings? where would be the use forpropriety and righteousness? Although there were the sage kings,propriety, and righteousness, what could they add to the nature socorrect, regulated, and happily ruled in itself? But it is not so;the nature of man is bad. It was on this account, that anciently thesage kings, understanding that man’s nature was bad, in astate of deflection and insecurity instead of being correct, in astate of rebellious disorder instead of one of happy rule, set uptherefore the majesty of princes and governors to awe it; and setforth propriety and righteousness to change it; and framed laws andstatutes of correctness to rule it; and devised severe punishmentsto restrain it:—so that its outgoings might be under thedominion of rule, and in accordance with what is good. This is[the true account of] the governance of thesage kings, and the transforming power of propriety andrighteousness. Let us suppose a state of things in which there shallbe no majesty of princes and governors, no influence of proprietyand righteousness, no rule of laws and statutes, no restraints ofpunishment:—what would be the relations of men with oneanother, all under heaven? The strong would be injuring the weak,and spoiling them; the many would be tyrannizing over the few, andhooting them; a universal disorder and mutual destruction wouldspeedily ensue. When we look at the subject in this way, we seeclearly that the nature of man is evil; the good which it shows isfactitious.

He who would speak well of ancient times must have certain referencesin the present; he who would speak well ofHeaven must substantiate what he says out of man. In discourse andargument it is an excellent quality when the divisions which aremade can be brought together like the halves of a token. When it isso, the arguer may sit down, and discourse of his principles; and hehas only to rise up, and they may be set forth and displayed andcarried into action. When Mencius says that the nature of man isgood, there is no bringing together in the above manner of hisdivisions. He sits down and talks, but there is no getting up todisplay and set forth his principles, and put them inoperation:—is not his error very gross? To say that thenature is good does away with the sage kings, and makes an end ofpropriety and righteousness; to say that the nature is bad exaltsthe sage kings, and dignifies propriety and righteousness. As theorigin of the pressing-boards is to be found in the crooked wood,and the origin of the carpenter’s marking line is to befound in things’ not being straight; so the rise ofprinces and governors, and the illustration of propriety andrighteousness, are to be traced to the badness of the nature. It isclear from this view of the subject that the nature of man is bad;the good which it shows is factitious.

A straight piece of wood does not need the pressing-boards to make itstraight;—it is so by its nature. A crooked piece of woodmust be submitted to the pressing-boards to soften and straightenit, and then it is straight;—it is not straight by itsnature. So it is that the nature of man, being evil, must besubmitted to the rule of the sage kings, and to the transforminginfluence of propriety and righteousness, and then its outgoings areunder the dominion of rule, and in accordance with what is good.This shows clearly that the nature of man is bad; the good which itshows is factitious.

An inquirer may say [again],“Propriety and righteousness, though seen in anaccumulation of factitious deeds, do yet belong to the nature ofman; and thus it was that the sages were able to producethem.” I reply,—It is not so. A potter takes apiece of clay, and produces a dish from it; but are that dish andclay the nature of the potter? A carpenter plies his tools upon apiece of wood, and produces a vessel; but are that vessel and woodthe nature of the carpenter? So it is with the sages and proprietyand righteousness; they produced them,just as the potter works with the clay. It is plain that there is noreason for saying that propriety and righteousness, and theaccumulation of their factitious actions, belong to the propernature of man. Speaking of the nature of man, it is the same inall,—the same in Yaou and Shun, and in Këehand in the robber Chih, the same in the superior man and in the meanman. If you say that propriety and righteousness, with thefactitious actions accumulated from them, are the nature of man, onwhat ground do you proceed to ennoble Yaou and Yu, to ennoble[generally] the superior man? The ground onwhich we ennoble Yaou, Yu, and the superior man, is their ability tochange the nature, and to produce factitious conduct. Thatfactitious conduct being produced, out of it there are broughtpropriety and righteousness. The sages stand indeed in the samerelation to propriety and righteousness, and the factitious conductresulting from them, as the potter does to his clay:—wehave a product in either case. This representation makes it clearthat propriety and righteousness, with their factitious results, donot properly belong to the nature of man. [On the otherhand], that which we consider mean in Keeh, the robberChih, and the mean man generally, is that they follow their nature,act in accordance with its feelings, and indulge its resentments,till all its outgoings are a greed of gain, contentions, andrapine.—It is plain that the nature of man is bad; thegood which it shows is factitious.

Heaven did not make favourites of Tsăng,K‘ëen, and Heaou-ke, and deal unkindly withthe rest of men. How then was it that they alone were distinguishedby the greatness of their filial deeds, that all which the name offilial piety implies was complete in them? The reason was that theywere subject to the restraints of propriety and righteousness.

Heaven did not make favourites of the people of Ts‘e andLoo, and deal unkindly with the people of Ts‘in. How thenwas it that the latter were not equal to the former in the richmanifestation of the filial piety belonging to the righteousness ofthe relation between father and son, and the respectful observanceof the proprieties belonging to the separate functions of husbandand wife? The reason was that the people of Ts‘infollowed the feelings of their nature,indulged its resentments, and contemned propriety and righteousness.We are not to suppose that they were different in their nature.

What is the meaning of the saying, that “Any traveller onthe road may become like Yu?” I answer,—Allthat made Yu what he was was his practice of benevolence,righteousness, and his observance of laws and rectitude. Butbenevolence, righteousness, laws, and rectitude, are all capable ofbeing known and being practised. Moreover, any traveller on the roadhas the capacity of knowing these, and the ability to practisethem:—it is plain that he may become like Yu. If you saythat benevolence, righteousness, laws, and rectitude, are notcapable of being known and practised, then Yu himself could not haveknown, could not have practised them. If you will have it that anytraveller on the road is really without the capacity of knowingthese things, and the ability to practise them, then, in his home,it will not be competent for him to know the righteousness thatshould rule between father and son, and, abroad, it will not becompetent for him to know the rectitude that should rule betweenruler and minister. But it is not so. There is no one who travelsalong the road but may know both that righteousness and thatrectitude:—it is plain that the capacity to know and theability to practise belong to every traveller on the way. Let him,therefore, with his capacity of knowing and ability to practise,take his ground on the knowableness and practicableness ofbenevolence and righteousness;—and it is clear that hemay become like Yu. Yea, let any traveller on the way addict himselfto the art of learning with all his heart and the entire bent of hiswill, thinking, searching, and closely examining;—let himdo this day after day, through a long space of time, accumulatingwhat is good, and he will penetrate as far as a spiritualIntelligence, he will become a ternion with Heaven and Earth. Itfollows that [the characters of] the sageswere what any man may reach by accumulation.

It may be said:—“To be sage may thus be reachedby accumulation;—why is it that all men cannot accumulate[to this extent?]” Ireply,—They may do so, but they cannot be made to do so.The mean man might become a superior man, but he is not willing tobe a superior man. The superior man mightbecome a mean man, but he is not willing to be a mean man. It is notthat the mean man and the superior man may not become the one theother; their not becoming the one the other is because it is a thingwhich may be, but cannot be made to be. Any traveller on the roadmay become like Yu:—the case is so; that any traveller onthe road can really become like Yu:—this is not anecessary conclusion. Though any one, however, cannot really becomelike Yu, that is not contrary at all to the truth that he may becomeso. One’s feet might travel all over the world, but therenever was one who was really able to travel all over the world.There is nothing to prevent the mechanic, the farmer, and themerchant, from practising each the business of the others, but therehas never been a case when it has really been done. Looking at thesubject in this way, we see that what may be need not really be; andalthough it shall not really be, that is not contrary to the truththat it might be. It thus appears that the difference is widebetween what is really done or not really done, and what may be ormay not be. It is plain that these two cases may not become the onethe other.

Yaou asked Shun what was the character of the feelings proper to man.Shun replied, “The feelings proper to man are veryunlovely; why need you ask about them? When a man has got a wife andchildren, his filial piety withers away; under the influence of lustand gratified desires, his good faith to his friends withers away;when he is full of dignities and emoluments, his loyalty to hisruler withers away. The natural feelings of man! The naturalfeelings of man! They are very unlovely. Why need you ask aboutthem? It is only in the case of men of the highest worth that it isnot so.”

There is a knowledge characteristic of the sage; a knowledgecharacteristic of the scholar and superior man; a knowledgecharacteristic of the mean man; and a knowledge characteristic ofthe mere servant. In much speech to show his cultivation andmaintain consistency, and though he may discuss for a whole day thereasons of a subject, to have a unity pervading the ten thousandchanges of discourse;—this is the knowledge of the sage.To speak seldom, and in a brief and sparing manner, and to beorderly in his reasoning, as if its parts were connected with astring;—this is the knowledgeof the scholar and superior man. Flattering words and disorderlyconduct, with undertakings often followed byregrets;—these mark the knowledge of the mean man. Hasty,officious, smart, and swift, but without consistency; versatile,able, of extensive capabilities, but without use; decisive indiscourse, rapid, exact, but the subject unimportant; regardless ofright and wrong, taking no account of crooked and straight, to getthe victory over others the guiding object:—this is theknowledge of the mere servant.

There is bravery of the highest order; bravery of the middle order;bravery of the lowest order. Boldly to take up his position in theplace of the universally acknowledged Mean; boldly to carry intopractice his views of the doctrines of the ancient kings; in a highsituation, not to defer to a bad ruler, and, in a low situation, notto follow the current of a bad people; to consider that there is nopoverty where there is virtue, and no wealth where virtue is not;when appreciated by the world, to desire to share in allmen’s joys and sorrows; when unknown by the world, tostand up grandly alone between heaven and earth, and have nofears:—this is the bravery of the highest order. To bereverently observant of propriety, and sober-minded; to attachimportance to adherence to fidelity, and set little store bymaterial wealth; to have the boldness to push forward men of worthand exalt them, to hold back undeserving men, and get themdeposed;—this is the bravery of the middle order. To bedevoid of self-respect and set a great value on wealth; to feelcomplacent in calamity, and always have plenty to say for himself;saving himself in any way without regard to right and wrong;whatever be the real state of a case, making it his object to getthe victory over others:—this is the bravery of thelowest order.

The fan-joh, the keu, andthe shoo were the best bows of antiquity; butwithout their regulators, they could not adjust themselves. The tsung of duke Hwan, the keueh of T‘aekung, the luh of king Wăn, the hwuh of princeChwang, the kan-tseang, moh-yay keu-keueh, and p‘eih-leu ofHoh-leu:—these were the best swords of antiquity; butwithout the grindstone and whetstone, they would not have beensharp; without the strength of the arms that wielded them, theywould not have cut anything.

The hwa, the lew, the le, the k‘e, the sėen, the lei, the luh, and the urh: —these were the best horses of antiquity; butthere were still necessary for them the restraints in front of bitand bridle, the stimulants behind of cane and whip, and themanagement of a Tsaou-foo, and then they could accomplish a thousand le in one day.

So it is with man:—granted to him an excellent capacity ofnature and the faculty of intellect, he must still seek for goodteachers under whom to place himself, and make choice of friendswith whom he may be intimate. Having got good masters and placedhimself under them, what he will hear will be the doctrines of Yaou,Shun, Yu, and T‘ang; having got good friends and becomeintimate with them, what he will see will be deeds ofself-consecration, fidelity, reverence, andcomplaisance:—he will go on from day to day tobenevolence and righteousness, without being conscious of it; anatural following of them will make him do so. On the other hand, ifhe live with bad men, what he will hear will be the language ofdeceit, calumny, imposture, and hypocrisy; what he will see will bethe conduct of filthiness, insolence, lewdness, corruptness, andgreed:—he will be going on from day to day to punishmentand disgrace, without being conscious of it; a natural following ofthem will make him do so.

The Record says, “If you do not know your son, look at hisfriends; if you do not know your ruler, look at hisconfidants.” All is the influence of association! All isthe influence of association!

II.: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE OF MAN.

BY HAN WĂN-KUNG.

THE NATURE dates from the date of the life; THE FEELINGS date from contact with externalthings. There are three GRADES of the nature, andit has five CHARACTERISTICS. There are also three GRADES of the feelings, and they have seven CHARACTERISTICS. To explainmyself:—The three grades of the nature are—theSuperior, the Middle, and the Inferior. The superior grade is good,and good only; the middle grade is capableof being led: it may rise to the superior, or sink to the inferior;the inferior is evil, and evil only. The five characteristics of thenature are—Benevolence, Righteousness, Propriety,Sincerity, and Knowledge. In the Superior Grade, the first of thesecharacteristics is supreme, and the other four are practised. In theMiddle Grade, the first of these characteristics is not wanting: itexists, but with a little tendency to its opposite; the other fourare in an ill-assorted state. In the Inferior Grade there is theopposite of the first characteristic, and constant rebelliousnessagainst the other four. The grade of the nature regulates themanifestation of the feelings in it.[Again]:—The three grades of thefeelings are the Superior, the Middle, and the Inferior; and theirseven characteristics are—Joy, Anger, Sorrow, Fear, Love,Hatred, and Desire. In the Superior Grade, these seven all move, andeach in its due place and degree. In the Middle Grade, some of thecharacteristics are in excess, and some in defect; but there is aseeking to give them their due place and degree. In the InferiorGrade, whether they are in excess or defect, there is a recklessacting according to the one in immediate predominance. The grade ofthe feelings regulates the influence of the nature in reference tothem.

Speaking of the nature, Menciussaid:—“Man’s nature isgood;” the philosopher Seunsaid:—“Man’s nature isbad;” the philosopher Yangsaid:—“In the nature of man good and evil aremixed together.” Now, to say that the nature, good atfirst, subsequently becomes bad; or that, bad at first, itsubsequently becomes good; or that, mixed at first, it subsequentlybecomes—it may be good, it may be bad:—in eachof these cases only the nature of the middle grade is dealt with,and the superior and inferior grades are neglected. Thosephilosophers are right about one grade, and wrong about the othertwo.

When Shuh-yu was born, his mother knew, as soon as she looked at him,that he would fall a victim to his love of bribes. When Yang Sze-gowas born, the mother of Shuh-hëang knew, as soon as sheheard him cry, that he would cause the destruction of all hiskindred. When Yueh-tsëaou was born, Tsze-wănconsidered it was a great calamity, knowing that through him theghosts of the Joh-gaou family would all be famished.—Withsuch cases before us, can it be said thatthe nature of man ( i.e., all men) is good?

When How-tseih was born, his mother had no suffering; and as soon ashe began to creep, he displayed all elegance and intelligence. Whenking Wăn was in his mother’s womb, sheexperienced no distress; after his birth, those who tended him hadno trouble; when he began to learn, his teachers had novexation:—with such cases before us, can it be said thatthe nature of man ( i.e., all men) is evil?

Choo was the son of Yaou, and Keun the son of Shun; Kwan andTs‘ae were sons of king Wăn. They wereinstructed to practise nothing but what was good, and yet theyturned out villains. Shun was the son of Koo-sow, and Yu the son ofK‘wăn. They were instructed to practisenothing but what was bad, and yet they turned outsages.—With such cases before us, can it be said that inthe nature of man ( i.e., all men) good and evilare blended together?

Having these things in view, I say that the three philosophers, towhom I have referred, dealt with the middle grade of the nature, andneglected the superior and the inferior, that they were right aboutthe one grade, and wrong about the other two.

It may be asked, “Is it so, then, that the superior andinferior grades of the nature can never be changed?” Ireply,—The nature of the superior grade, by applicationto learning, becomes more intelligent, and the nature of theinferior grade, through awe of power, comes to have few faults. Thesuperior nature, therefore, may be taught, and the inferior naturemay be restrained; but the grades have been pronounced by Confuciusto be unchangeable.

It may be asked, “How is it that those who now-a-daysspeak about the nature do so differently from this?” Ireply,—Those who now-a-days speak about the nature blendwith their other views those of Laou-tsze and Buddhism; and doingso, how could they speak otherwise than differently from me?

CHAPTER III.: OF YANG CHOO AND MIH TEIH.

SECTION I.: THE OPINIONS OF YANG CHOO.

1. “ THE words of Yang Choo and Mih Teih,” said Mencius,“fill the empire. If you listen to people’sdiscourses throughout it, you will find that they have adopted the viewsof the one or of the other. Now, Yang’s principleis—‘Each one for himself,’ which doesnot acknowledge the claims of the sovereign. Mih’s principleis—‘To love all equally,’ which doesnot acknowledge the peculiar affection due to a father. To acknowledgeneither king nor father is to be in the state of a beast. If theirprinciples are not stopped, and the principles of Confucius set forth,their perverse speakings will delude the people, and stop up the path ofbenevolence and righteousness.

“I am alarmed by these things, and address myself to thedefence of the doctrines of the former sages, and to oppose Yang andMih. I drive away their licentious expressions, so that such perversespeakers may not be able to show themselves. When sages shall rise upagain, they will not change my words.” [1]

His opposition to Yang and Mih was thus one of the great labours ofMencius’ life, and what he deemed the success of it one ofhis great achievements. His countrymen generally accede to the justiceof his claim; though there have not been wanting some tosay—justly, as I think and will endeavour to show in the nextsection—that Mih need not have incurred from him such heavycensure. For Yang no one has a word to say. His leading principle asstated by Mencius is certainly detestable, and so far as we can judgefrom the slight accounts of him that are to be gathered from otherquarters, he seems to have been about “the least erectedspirit,” who ever professed to reason concerning the life andduties of man.

2. The generally received opinionis that Yang belonged to the period of “The WarringStates,” the same era of Chinese history as Mencius. He wasnamed Choo, and styled Tsze-keu. In a note, p. 159 of my larger work, Ihave supposed that he was of the times of Confucius and Laou-tsze,having then before me a passage of the Taouist philosopher Chwang, inwhich he gives an account of an interview between Laou-tsze and YangChoo. That interview, however, must be an invention of Chwang. Thenatural impression which we receive from all the references of Menciusis that Yang must have been posterior to Confucius, and that hisopinions had come into vogue only in the times of our philosopherhimself. This view would be placed beyond doubt if we could receive asgenuine the chapter on Yang, which is contained in the writings of thephilosopher Leeh. And so far we may accept it, as to believe that itgives the sentiments which were attributed to him in the 1st centurybefore our era. The leading principle ascribed to him by Mencius nowhereappears in it in so many words, but the general tenor of his language isentirely in accordance with it. This will appear from the followingspecimens:—

“Yang Choo said, ‘A hundred years are the extremelimit of longevity; and not one man in a thousand enjoys such a periodof life. Suppose the case of one who does so:—infancy bornein the arms, and doting old age, will nearly occupy the half; what isforgotten in sleep, and what is lost in the waking day, will nearlyoccupy the half; pain and sickness, sorrow and bitterness, losses,anxieties, and fears will nearly occupy the half. There may remain tenyears or so; but I reckon that not even in them will be found an hour ofsmiling self-abandonment, without the shadow ofsolicitude.—What is the life of man then to be made of? Whatpleasure is in it?

“ ‘[Is it to be prized] forthe pleasure of food and dress? or for the enjoyments of music andbeauty? But one cannot be always satisfied with those pleasures; onecannot be always toying with beauty and listening to music. And thenthere are the restraints of punishments and the stimulants of rewards;the urgings and the repressings of fame and laws:—these makeone strive restlessly for the vain praise of an hour, and calculate onthe residuary glory after death; they keep him, as with body bent, onthe watch against what his ears hear and hiseyes see, and attending to the right and the wrong of his conduct andthoughts. In this way he loses the real pleasure of his years, andcannot allow himself for a moment.—In what does he differfrom an individual manacled and fettered in an inner prison? The peopleof high antiquity knew both the shortness of life, and how suddenly andcompletely it might be closed by death, and therefore they obeyed themovements of their hearts, refusing not what it was natural for them tolike, nor seeking to avoid any pleasure that occurred to them. They paidno heed to the incitements of fame; they enjoyed themselves according totheir nature; they did not resist the common tendency of all things toself-enjoyment; they cared not to be famous after death. They managed tokeep clear of punishment; as to fame and praise, being first or last,long life or short life, these things did not come into theircalculations.’ ”

“Yang Choo said, ‘Wherein people differ is thematter of life; wherein they agree is death. While they are alive, wehave the distinctions of intelligence and stupidity, honourableness andmeanness; when they are dead, we have so much stinking rottennessdecaying away:—this is the common lot. Yet intelligence andstupidity, honourableness and meanness, are not in one’spower; neither is that condition of putridity, decay, and utterdisappearance. A man’s life is not in his own hands, nor ishis death; his intelligence is not his own, nor is his stupidity, norhis honourableness, nor his meanness. All are born and alldie;—the intelligent and the stupid, the honourable and themean. At ten years old some die; at a hundred years old some die. Thevirtuous and the sage die; the ruffian and the fool also die. Alive,they were Yaou and Shun; dead they were so much rotten bone. Alive theywere Këeh and Chow; dead, they were so much rotten bone. Whocould know any difference between their rotten bones? While alive,therefore, let us hasten to make the best of life; what leisure have weto be thinking of anything after death?’ ”

“Măng-sun Yang asked Yang-tsze, saying,‘Here is a man who sets a high value on his life, and takesloving care of his body, hoping that he will not die:—does hedo right?’ ‘There is no such thing as notdying,’ was the reply. ‘But if he does so, hopingfor long life, is he right?’Yang-tsze answered, ‘One cannot be assured of long life.Setting value upon life will not preserve it; taking care of the bodywill not make it greatly better. And, in fact, why should long life bemade of? There are the five feelings with their likings anddislikings,—now as in old time; there are the four limbs, nowat ease, now in danger,—now as in old time; there are thevarious experiences of joy and sorrow,—now as in old time;there are the various changes from order to disorder, and from disorderto order,—now as in old time:—all these things Ihave heard of, and seen, and gone through. A hundred years of them wouldbe more than enough, and shall I wish the pain protracted through alonger life?’ Mang-sun said, ‘If it be so, earlydeath is better than long life. Let a man go to trample on the pointedsteel, or throw himself into the caldron or flames, to get what hedesires.’ Yang-tsze answered, ‘No. Being onceborn, take your life as it comes, and endure it, and, seeking to enjoyyourself as you desire, so await the approach of death. When you areabout to die, treat the thing with indifference and endure it; andseeking to accomplish your departure, so abandon yourself toannihilation. Both death and life should be treated with indifference;they should both be endured:—why trouble onesself aboutearliness or lateness in connexion with them?’”

“K‘in-tsze asked Yang Choo, saying, ‘Ifyou could benefit the world by parting with one hair of your body, wouldyou do it?’ ‘The world is not to be benefited by ahair,’ replied Yang. The other urged, ‘But supposeit could be, what would you do?’ To this Yang gave no answer,and K‘in went out, and reported what had passed toMăng-sun Yang. Măng-sun said, ‘You donot understand our Master’s mind:—let me explainit to you. If by enduring a slight wound in the flesh, you could get tenthousand pieces of gold, would you endure it?’ ‘Iwould.’ ‘If by cutting off one of your limbs, youcould get a kingdom, would you do it?’ K‘in wassilent; and after a little, Măng-sun Yang resumed,‘To part with a hair is a slighter matter than to receive awound in the flesh, and that again is a slighter matter than to lose alimb:—that you can discern. But consider:—a hairmay be multiplied till it become as important as the piece of flesh, andthe piece of flesh may be multiplied till it becomes as important as alimb. A single hair is just one of the tenthousand portions of the body;—why should you make light ofit?’ K‘in-tsze replied, ‘I cannotanswer you. If I could refer your words to Laou Tan or Kwan Yin, theywould say that you were right; but if I could refer my words to thegreat Yu or Mih Teih, they would say that I was right.’Măng-sun Yang, on this, turned round, and entered intoconversation with his disciples on another subject.”

“Yang Choo said, ‘The empire agrees in consideringShun, Yu, Chow-kung, and Confucius to have been the most admirable ofmen, and in considering Këeh and Chow to have been the mostwicked.

“ ‘Now, Shun had to plough the ground on the southof the Ho, and to play the potter by the Luy lake. His four limbs hadnot even a temporary rest; for his mouth and belly he could not findpleasant food and warm clothing. No love of his parents rested upon him;no affection of his brothers and sisters. When he was thirty years old,he had not been able to get the permission of his parents to marry. WhenYaou at length resigned to him the throne, he was advanced in age; hiswisdom was decayed; his son Shang-keun proved without ability; and hehad finally to resign the throne to Yu. Sorrowfully came he to hisdeath. Of all mortals never was one whose life was so worn out andempoisoned as his. K‘wăn was required to reducethe deluged land to order; and when his labours were ineffectual, he wasput to death on mount Yu, and Yu [his son] had toundertake the task, and serve his enemy. All his energies were spent onhis labours with the land; a child was born to him, but he could notfoster it; he passed his door without entering; his body became bent andwithered; the skin of his hands and feet became thick and callous. Whenat length Shun resigned to him the throne, he lived in a low, meanhouse, while his sacrificial apron and cap were elegant. Sorrowfullycame he to his death. Of all mortals never was one whose life was sosaddened and embittered as his. On the death of king Woo [hisson], king Shing was young and weak. Chow-kung had toundertake all the imperial duties. The duke of Shaou was displeased, andevil reports spread through the empire. Chow-kung had to reside threeyears in the east; he slew his elder brother, and banished his younger;scarcely did he escape with his life. Sorrowfully came he to his death.Of all mortals never was one whose life was sofull of hazards and terrors as his. Confucius understood the ways of theancient emperors and kings. He responded to the invitations of theprinces of his time. The tree was cut down over him in Sung; the tracesof his footsteps were removed in Wei; he was reduced to extremity inShang and Chow; he was surrounded in Ch‘in andTs‘ae; he had to bend to the Head of the Ke family; he wasdisgraced by Yang Hoo. Sorrowfully came he to his death. Of all mortalsnever was one whose life was so agitated and hurried as his.

“ ‘Those four sages, during their life, had not asingle day’s joy. Since their death they have had a[grand] fame that will last through myriads ofages. But that fame is what no one who cares for what is real wouldchoose. Celebrate them;—they do not know it. Rewardthem;—they do not know it. Their fame is no more to them thanto the trunk of a tree or a clod of earth.

“ ‘[On the other hand],Këeh came into the accumulated wealth of many generations; tohim belonged the honour of the imperial seat; his wisdom was enough toenable him to set at defiance all below; his power was enough to shakethe empire. He indulged the pleasures to which his eyes and earsprompted him; he carried out whatever it came into his thoughts to do.Brightly came he to his death. Of all mortals never was one whose lifewas so luxurious and dissipated as his.[Similarly], Chow came into the accumulated wealthof many generations; to him belonged the honour of the royal seat; hispower enabled him to do whatever he would; his will was everywhereobeyed; he indulged his feelings in all his palaces; he gave the reinsto his lusts through the long night; he never made himself bitter by thethought of propriety and righteousness. Brightly came he to hisdestruction. Of all mortals never was one whose life was so abandoned ashis.

“ ‘These two villains, during their life, had thejoy of gratifying their desires. Since their death, they have had the[evil] fame of folly and tyranny. But the reality[of enjoyment] is what no fame can give. Reproachthem;—they do not know it. Praise them;—they donot know it. Their [ill]fame is no more to themthan to the trunk of a tree, or to a clod of earth.

“ ‘To the four sages all admiration is given; yetwere their lives bitter to the end, and theircommon lot was death. To the two villains all condemnation is given; yettheir lives were pleasant to the last, and their common lot was likewisedeath.’ ”

3. The above passages aresufficient to show the character of Yang Choo’s mind and ofhis teachings. It would be doing injustice to Epicurus to compare Yangwith him, for though the Grecian philosopher made happiness the chiefend of human pursuit, he taught also that “we cannot livepleasurably without living virtuously and justly.” TheEpicurean system is, indeed, unequal to the capacity, and far below thehighest complacencies, of human nature; but it is widely different fromthe reckless contempt of all which is esteemed good and great thatdefiles the pages where Yang is made to tell his views.

We are sometimes reminded by him of fragmentary utterance in the Book ofEcclesiastes:—“In much wisdom is much grief; andhe that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”“As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; andwhy was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also isvanity. For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the foolfor ever; seeing that which now is, in the days to come shall all beforgotten. And how dieth the wise man? As the fool. Therefore I hatedlife; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous to me:for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” “Thereis a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity. . .All his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart takethnot rest in the night:—this is also vanity. There is nothingbetter for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that he shouldmake his soul enjoy good in his labour.” “Thatwhich befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thingbefalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have allone breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence over a beast: for all isvanity. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dustagain. . . Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better than that aman should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for whoshall bring him to see what shall be after him?”

But those thoughts were suggestions of evil from which the HebrewPreacher recoiled in his own mind; and he putthem on record only that he might give their antidote along with them.He vanquished them by his faith in God; and so he ends by saying,“Let us hear the conclusion of the wholematter.—Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is thewhole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment withevery secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it beevil.” Yang Choo has no redeeming qualities. His reasoningscontain no elements to counteract the poison that is in them. He neverrises to the thought of God. There are, he allows, such ideas as thoseof propriety and righteousness, but the effect of them is merely toembitter and mar the enjoyment of life. Fame is but a phantom which onlythe fool will pursue. It is the same with all at death. There theirbeing ends. After that there is but so much putridity and rottenness.With him therefore the conclusion of the whole matteris:—“Let us eat and drink; let us live inpleasure; gratify the ears and eyes; get servants and maidens, music,beauty, wine; when the day is insufficient, carry it on through thenight; EACH ONE FOR HIMSELF. ”

Mencius might well say that if such “licentioustalk” were not arrested, the path of benevolence andrighteousness would be stopped up. If Yang’s principles hadbeen entertained by the nation, every bond of society would have beendissolved. All the foundations of order would have been destroyed. Vicewould have become rampant, and virtue would have been named only to bescorned. There would have remained for the entire State only what Yangsaw in store for the individual man—“putridity androttenness.” Doubtless it was owing to Mencius’opposition that the foul and dangerous current was stayed. He raised upagainst it the bulwark of human nature formed for virtue. He insisted onbenevolence, righteousness, propriety, fidelity, as the noblestattributes of man’s conduct. More was needed, but more hecould not supply. If he had had a living faith in God, and had been inpossession of His revealed will, the present state of China might havebeen very different. He was able to warn his countrymen of the gulf intowhich Yang Choo would have plunged them; but he could direct them in theway of truth and duty only imperfectly. He sent them into the dark caveof their own souls, and back to the vague lessons and imperfect examplesof their sages; and China has staggered on,waxing feebler and feebler, to the present time. Her people need to bedirected above themselves and beyond the present. When stars shine outto them in heaven and from eternity, the empire will perhaps renew itsyouth, and go forward from strength to strength.

SECTION II.: THE OPINIONS OF MIH TEIH.

1. VERY different from Yang Choo was Mih Teih. Theystood at the opposite poles of human thought and sentiment; and we maywonder that Mencius should have offered the same stern opposition to theopinions of each of them. He did well to oppose the doctrine whosewatchword was—“Each one for himself;”was it right to denounce, as equally injurious, that which taught thatthe root of all social evils is to be traced to the want of mutuallove?

It is allowed that Mih was a native and officer of the State of Sung; butthe time when he lived is a matter of dispute. Sze-maTs‘ëen says that some made him to be acontemporary of Confucius, and that others placed him later. He wascertainly later than Confucius, to whom he makes many references, notalways complimentary, in his writings. In one of his Treatises,moreover, mention is made of Wăn-tsze, an acknowledgeddisciple of Tsze-hëa, so that he must have been very littleanterior to Mencius. This is the impression also which I receive fromthe references to him in our philosopher.

In Lëw Hin’s third catalogue the Mihist writersform a subdivision. Six of them are mentioned, including Mih himself, towhom 71 p‘ëen, or Books, areattributed. So many were then current under his name; but 18 of themhave since been lost. He was an original thinker. He exercised a bolderjudgment on things than Confucius or any of his followers. Antiquity wasnot so sacred to him, and he did not hesitate to condemn theliterati—the orthodox—for several of theirdoctrines and practices.

Two of his peculiar views are adverted to by Mencius, and vehementlycondemned. The one is about the regulation of funerals, where Mihcontended that a spare simphcity should be the rule. [1] On that I need not dwell.The other is the doctrine of “Universal Love.” [2] A lengthy exposition of this remainsin the Writings which go by Mih’s name, though it is not fromhis own pen, but that of a disciple. Such as it is, with all itsrepetitions, I give a translation of it. My readers will be able, afterperusing it, to go on with me to consider the treatment which thedoctrine received at the hands of Mencius.

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART I.

IT is the business of the sages to effect the goodgovernment of the empire. They must know, therefore, whence disorder andconfusion arise, for without this knowledge their object cannot beeffected. We may compare them to a physician who undertakes to cure aman’s disease:—he must ascertain whence thedisease has arisen, and then he can assail it with effect, while,without such knowledge, his endeavours will be in vain. Why should weexcept the case of those who have to regulate disorder from this rule?They must know whence it has arisen, and then they can regulate it.

It is the business of the sages to effect the good government of allunder heaven. They must examine therefore into the cause of disorder;and when they do so, they will find that it arises from the want ofmutual love. When a minister and a son are not filial to their sovereignand their father, this is what is called disorder. A son loves himself,and does not love his father;—he therefore wrongs his fatherand advantages himself: a younger brother loves himself, and does notlove his elder brother;—he therefore wrongs his elder brother, and advantages himself: a minister loveshimself, and does not love his sovereign:—he therefore wrongshis sovereign, and advantages himself:—all these are cases ofwhat is called disorder. Though it be the father who is not kind to hisson, or the elder brother who is not kind to his younger brother; or thesovereign who is not gracious to his minister:—the case comesequally under the general name of disorder. The father loves himself,and does not love his son;—he therefore wrongs his son, andadvantages himself: the elder brother loves himself, and does not lovehis younger brother;—he therefore wrongs his younger brother,and advantages himself: the sovereign loves himself, and does not lovehis minister;—he therefore wrongs his minister, andadvantages himself. How do these things come to pass? They all arisefrom the want of mutual love. Take the case of any thief orrobber:—it is just the same with it. The thief loves his ownhouse, and does not love his neighbour’s house;—hetherefore steals from his neighbour’s house to advantage hisown: the robber loves his own person, and does not love hisneighbour;—he therefore does violence to his neighbour toadvantage himself. How is this? It all arises from the want of mutuallove. Come to the case of great officers throwing eachother’s families into confusion, and of princes attacking oneanother’s States:—it is just the same with them.The great officer loves his own family, and does not love hisneighbour’s;—he therefore throws hisneighbour’s family into disorder to advantage his own: theprince loves his own State, and does not love hisneighbour’s;—he therefore attacks hisneighbour’s State to advantage his own. All disorder in theempire has the same explanation. When we examine into the cause of it,it is found to be the want of mutual love.

Suppose that universal mutual love prevailed throughout thekingdom;—if men loved others as they love themselves,disliking to exhibit what was unfilial. . . . . . [1] And moreover would there bethose who were unkind? Looking on their sons, younger brothers, andministers as themselves, and disliking to exhibit what was unkind . . .. the want of filial duty would disappear. And would there be thievesand robbers? When every man regarded hisneighbour’s house as his own, who would be found to steal?When every one regarded his neighbour’s person as his own,who would be found to rob? Thieves and robbers would disappear. Andwould there be great officers throwing one another’s familiesinto confusion, and princes attacking one another’s States?When officers regarded the families of others as their own, what onewould make confusion? When princes regarded other States as their own,what one would begin an attack? Great officers throwing oneanother’s families into confusion, and princes attacking oneanother’s States, would disappear.

If, indeed, universal mutual love prevailed throughout the kingdom; oneState not attacking another, and one family not throwing another intoconfusion; thieves and robbers nowhere existing; rulers and ministers,fathers and sons, all being filial and kind:—in such acondition the kingdom would be well governed. On this account, how maysages, whose business it is to effect the good government of thekingdom, do other than prohibit hatred and advise to love? On thisaccount it is affirmed that universal mutual love throughout the kingdomwill lead to its happy order, and that mutual hatred leads to confusion.This was what our master, the philosopher Mih, meant, when he said,“We must not but advise to the love ofothers.”

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART II.

OUR Master, the philosopher Mih, said,“That which benevolent men consider to be incumbent on themas their business, is to stimulate and promote all that will beadvantageous to the kingdom, and to take away all that is injurious toit. This is what they consider to be their business.”

And what are the things advantageous to the kingdom, and the thingsinjurious to it? Our Master said, “The mutual attacks ofState on State; the mutual usurpations of family on family; the mutualrobberies of man on man; the want of kindness on the part of thesovereign and of loyalty on the part of the minister; the want oftenderness and filial duty between father and son:—these, andsuch as these, are the things injurious to the empire.”

And from what do we find, on examination, that these injurious things areproduced? Is it not from the want of mutual love?

Our Master said, “Yes, they are produced by the want of mutuallove. Here is a prince who only knows to love his own State, and doesnot love his neighbour’s;—he therefore does notshrink from raising all the power of his State to attack his neighbour.Here is the chief of a family who only knows to love it, and does notlove his neighbour’s;—he therefore does not shrinkfrom raising all his powers to seize on that other family. Here is a manwho only knows to love his own person, and does not love hisneighbour’s;—he therefore does not shrink fromusing all his strength to rob his neighbour. Thus it happens that theprinces, not loving one another, have their battle-fields; and thechiefs of families, not loving one another, have their mutualusurpations; and men, not loving one another, have their mutualrobberies; and sovereigns and ministers, not loving one another, becomeunkind and disloyal; and fathers and sons, not loving one another, losetheir affection and filial duty; and brothers, not loving one another,contract irreconcileable enmities. Yea, men in general not loving oneanother, the strong make prey of the weak; the rich do despite to thepoor; the noble are insolent to the mean; and the deceitful impose uponthe stupid. All the miseries, usurpations, enmities, and hatreds in theworld, when traced to their origin, will be found to arise from the wantof mutual love. On this account, the benevolent condemnit.”

They may condemn it; but how shall they change it?

Our Master said, “They may change it by universal mutual love,and by the interchange of mutual benefits.”

How will this law of universal mutual love and the interchange of mutualbenefits accomplish this?

Our Master said, “[It would lead] to theregarding another kingdom as one’s own; another family asone’s own; another person as one’s own. That beingthe case, the princes, loving one another, would have no battle-fields;the chiefs of families, loving one another, would attempt nousurpations; men, loving one another, would commit no robberies; rulersand ministers, loving one another, would be gracious and loyal; fathersand sons, loving one another, would be kind and filial; brothers, lovingone another, would be harmonious and easilyreconciled. Yea, men in general loving one another, the strong would notmake prey of the weak; the many would not plunder the few; the richwould not insult the poor; the noble would not be insolent to the mean;and the deceitful would not impose upon the simple. The way in which allthe miseries, usurpations, enmities, and hatreds in the world may bemade not to arise, is universal mutual love. On this account, thebenevolent value and praise it.”

Yes; but the scholars of the empire and superior men say,“True; if there were this universal love, it would be good.It is, however, the most difficult thing in the world.”

Our Master said, “This is because the scholars and superiormen simply do not understand the advantageousness [of thelaw], and to conduct their reasonings upon that. Take thecase of assaulting a city, or of a battle-field, or of the sacrificingone’s life for the sake of fame;—this is felt bythe people everywhere to be a difficult thing. Yet, if the sovereign bepleased with it, both officers and people are able to doit:—how much more might they attain to universal mutual love,and the interchange of mutual benefits, which is different from this!When a man loves others, they respond to and love him; when a manbenefits others, they respond to and benefit him; when a man injuresothers, they respond to and injure him: when a man hates others, theyrespond to and hate him:—what difficulty is there in thematter? It is only that rulers will not carry on the government on thisprinciple, and so officers do not carry it out in their practice.

“Formerly, the duke Wăn of Tsin liked his officersto be badly dressed, and, therefore, they all wore rams’furs, a leathern swordbelt, and a cap of bleached cotton. Thus attired,they went in to the prince’s levee, and came out and walkedthrough the court. Why did they do this? The sovereign liked it, andtherefore the ministers did it. The duke Ling of Ts‘oo likedhis officers to have small waists, and, therefore, they all limitedthemselves to a single meal. They held in their breath in putting onthem belts, and had to help themselves up by means of the wall. In thecourse of a year, they looked black, and as if they would die ofstarvation. Why did they do this? Thesovereign liked it, and, therefore, the ministers were able to do it.Kow-tsëen, the king of Yueh, liked his ministers to be brave,and taught them to be accustomed to be so. At a general assembly ofthem, he set on fire the ship where they were, and to try them, said,“All the precious things of Yueh are here.” Hethen with his own hands beat a drum, and urged them on. When they heardthe drum thundering, they rushed confusedly about, and trampled in thefire, till more than a hundred of them perished, when he struck thegong, and called them back.

“Now, little food, bad clothes, and the sacrifice of life forthe sake of fame,—these are what it is difficult for peopleto approve of. Yet, when the sovereign was pleased with it, they wereall able [in those cases] to bring themselves tothem. How much more could they attain to universal mutual love, and theinterchange of mutual benefits, which is different from such things!When a man loves others, they respond to and love him; when a manbenefits others, they respond to and benefit him; when a man hatesothers, they respond to and hate him; when a man injures others, theyrespond to and injure him. It is only that rulers will not carry ontheir government on this principle, and so, officers do not carry it outin their practice.”

Yes; but now the officers and superior men say, “Granted; theuniversal practice of mutual love would be good; but it is animpracticable thing. It is like taking up the T‘ae mountain,and leaping with it over the Ho or the Tse.”

Our Master said, “That is not the proper comparison for it. Totake up the T‘ae mountain, and leap with it over the Ho orthe Tse, may be called an exercise of most extraordinary strength; itis, in fact, what no one, from antiquity to the present time, has everbeen able to do. But how widely different from this is the practice ofuniversal mutual love, and the interchange of mutual benefits!

“Anciently, the sage kings practised this. How do we know thatthey did so? When Yu reduced the empire to order:—in the westhe made the western Ho and the Joo-tow, to carry off the waters ofK‘eu-sun-wang; in the north, he made the Fang-yuen, the Koo,How-che-te, and the Tow of Foo-t‘o; setting up also theTe-ch‘oo, and chiselling out the Lung-mun, to benefit Yen,Tae, Hoo, Mih, and the people of the westernHo; in the east, he drained the waters to Luh-fang and the marsh ofMăng-choo, reducing them to nine channels, to limit thewaters of the eastern country, and benefit the people ofK‘e-chow; and in the south, he made the Këang, theHan, the Hwae, the Joo, the course of the eastern current, and the fivelakes, to benefit King, Ts‘oo, and Yueh, the people of thewild south. These were the doings of Yu; and I am now for practising the[same] universal [mutuallove].

“When king Wăn brought the western country to goodorder, his light spread, like the sun or the moon, over its fourquarters. He did not permit great States to insult small ones; he didnot permit the multitude to oppress the fatherless and the widow; he didnot permit violence and power to take from the husbandmen their milletpannicled millet, dogs, and swine. Heaven, as if constrained, visitedking Wăn with blessing. The old and childless were enabled tocomplete their years; the solitary and brotherless could yet mingleamong the living; the young and parentless found those on whom theycould depend, and grew up. These were the doings of king Wăn;and I am now for practising the same universal [mutuallove].

“King Woo tunneled through the T‘ae mountain. TheRecord says, ‘There is a way through the mountain, made byme, the descendant of the kings of Chow:—I have accomplishedthis great work. I have got my virtuous men, and rise up full ofreverence for Shang, Hea, and the tribes of the south, the east, and thenorth. Though he has his multitudes of relatives, they are not equal tomy virtuous men. If guilt attach to the people anywhere throughout theempire, it is to be required of me, the One man.’ Thisdescribes the doings of king Woo, and I am now for practising the[same] universal mutual love.

“If, now, the rulers of the kingdom truly and sincerely wishall in it to be rich, and dislike any being poor; if they desire itsgood government, and dislike disorder; they ought to practise universalmutual love, and the interchange of mutual benefits. This was the law ofthe sage kings; it is the way to effect the good government of thekingdom; it may not but be striven after.”

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART III.

OUR Master, the philosopher Mih, said,“The business of benevolent men requires that they shouldstrive to stimulate and promote what is advantageous to the empire, andto take away what is injurious to it.”

Speaking, now, of the present time, what are to be accounted the mostinjurious things to the empire? They are such as the attacking of smallStates by great ones; the inroads on small families of great ones; theplunder of the weak by the strong; the oppression of the few by themany; the scheming of the crafty against the simple; the insolence ofthe noble to the mean. To the same class belong the ungraciousness ofrulers, and the disloyalty of ministers; the unkindness of fathers, andthe want of filial duty on the part of sons. Yea, there is to be addedto these the conduct of the mean men, who employ their edged weapons andpoisoned stuff, water and fire, to rob and injure one another.

Pushing on the inquiry now, let us ask whence all these injurious thingsarise. Is it from loving others and advantaging others? It must beanswered “No;” and it must likewise be said,“They arise clearly from hating others and doing violence toothers.” [If it be further asked]whether those who hate and do violence to others hold the principle ofloving all, or that of making distinctions, it must be replied,“They make distinctions.” So then, it is thisprinciple of making distinctions between man and man, which gives riseto all that is most injurious in the empire. On this account we concludethat that principle is wrong.

Our Master said, “He who condemns others must have whereby tochange them.” To condemn men, and have no means of changingthem, is like saving them from fire by plunging them in water. Aman’s language in such a case must be improper. On thisaccount our Master said, “There is the principle of lovingall, to change that which makes distinctions.” If, now, weask, “And how is it that universallove can change [the consequences of] that otherprinciple which makes distinctions?” the answer is,“If princes were as much for the States of others as fortheir own, what one among them would raise the forces of his State toattack that of another?—he is for that other as much as forhimself. If they were for the capitals of others as much as for theirown, what one would raise the forces of his capital to attack that ofanother?—he is for that as much as for his own. If chiefsregarded the families of others as their own, what one would lead thepower of his family to throw that of another intoconfusion?—he is for that other as much as for himself. If,now, States did not attack, nor holders of capitals smite, one another,and if families were guilty of no mutual aggressions, would this beinjurious to the empire, or its benefit?” It must be replied,“This would be advantageous to the empire.”Pushing on the inquiry, now, let us ask whence all these benefits arise.Is it from hating others and doing violence to others? It must beanswered, “No;” and it must likewise be said,“They arise clearly from loving others and doing good toothers.” [If it be further asked]whether those who love others and do good to others hold the principleof making distinctions between man and man, or that of loving all, itmust be replied, “They love all.” So then it isthis principle of universal mutual love which really gives rise to allthat is most beneficial to the empire. On this account we conclude thatthat principle is right.

Our Master said, a little ago, “The business of benevolent menrequires that they should strive to stimulate and promote what isadvantageous to the kingdom, and to take away what is injurious toit.” We have now traced the subject up, and found that it isthe principle of universal love which produces all that is mostbeneficial to the kingdom, and the principle of making distinctionswhich produces all that is injurious to it. On this account what ourMaster said—“The principle of making distinctionsbetween man and man is wrong, and the principle of universal love isright,” turns out to be correct as the sides of a square.

If, now, we just desire to promote the benefit of the kingdom, and selectfor that purpose the principle of universal love, then the acute earsand piercing eyes of people will hear and see for one another; and thestrong limbs of people will move and be ruledfor one another; and men of principle will instruct one another. It willcome about that the old, who have neither wife nor children, will getsupporters who will enable them to complete their years; and the youngand weak, who have no parents, will yet find helpers that shall bringthem up. On the contrary, if this principle of universal love is heldnot to be correct, what benefits will arise from such a view? What canbe the reason that the scholars of the empire, whenever they hear ofthis principle of universal love, go on to condemn it? Plain as the caseis, their words in condemnation of this principle do notstop;—they say, “It may be good, but how can it becarried into practice?”

Our Master said, “Supposing that it could not be practised, itseems hard to go on likewise to condemn it. But how can it be good, andyet incapable of being put into practice?”

Let us bring forward two instances to test the matter.—Let anyone suppose the case of two individuals, the one of whom shall hold theprinciple of making distinctions, and the other shall hold the principleof universal love. The former of these will say, “How can Ibe for the person of my friend as much as for my own person? how can Ibe for the parents of my friend as much as for my ownparents?” Reasoning in this way, he may see his friendhungry, but he will not feed him; cold, but he will not clothe him;sick, but he will not nurse him; dead, but he will not bury him. Suchwill be the language of the individual holding the principle ofdistinction, and such will be his conduct. The language of the other,holding the principle of universality, will be different, and also hisconduct. He will say, “I have heard that he who wishes toplay a lofty part among men, will be for the person of his friend asmuch as for his own person, and for the parents of his friend as much asfor his own parents. It is only thus that he can attain his distinction?Reasoning in this way, when he sees his friend hungry, he will feed him;cold, he will clothe him; sick, he will nurse him; dead, he will buryhim. Such will be the language of him who holds the principle ofuniversal love, and such will be his conduct.

The words of the one of these individuals are a condemnation of those ofthe other, and their conduct is directlycontrary. Suppose now that their words are perfectly sincere, and thattheir conduct will be carried out,—that their words andactions will correspond like the parts of a token, every word beingcarried into effect; and let us proceed to put the following questionson the case:—Here is a plain in the open country, and anofficer, with coat of mail, gorget, and helmet, is about to take part ina battle to be fought in it, where the issue, whether for life or death,cannot be foreknown; or here is an officer about to be despatched on adistant commission from Pa to Yueh, or from Ts‘e to King,where the issue of the journey, going and coming, is quiteuncertain:—on either of these suppositions, to whom will theofficer entrust the charge of his house, the support of his parents, andthe care of his wife and children?—to one who holds theprinciple of universal love? or to one who holds that which makesdistinctions? I apprehend there is no one under heaven, man or woman,however stupid, though he may condemn the principle of universal love,but would at such a time make one who holds it the subject of his trust.This is in words to condemn the principle, and when there is occasion tochoose between it and the opposite, to approve it;—words andconduct are here in contradiction. I do not know how it is, that,throughout the empire, scholars condemn the principle of universal love,whenever they hear it.

Plain as the case is, their words in condemnation of it do not cease, butthey say, “This principle may suffice perhaps to guide in thechoice of an officer, but it will not guide in the choice of asovereign.”

Let us test this by taking two illustrations:—Let any onesuppose the case of two sovereigns, the one of whom shall hold theprinciple of mutual love, and the other shall hold the principle whichmakes distinctions. In this case, the latter of them will say,“How can I be as much for the persons of all my people as formy own? This is much opposed to human feelings. The life of man upon theearth is but a very brief space; it may be compared to the rapidmovement of a team of horses whirling past any particularspot.” Reasoning in this way, he may see his people hungry,but he will not feed them; cold, but he will not clothe them; sick, buthe will not nurse them; dead, but he will not bury them. Such will bethe language of the sovereign who holds the principle of distinctions,and such will be his conduct. Different willbe the language and conduct of the other who holds the principle ofuniversal love. He will say, “I have heard that he who wouldshow himself a [virtuous and] intelligentsovereign, ought to make his people the first consideration, and thinkof himself only after them.” Reasoning in this way, when hesees any of the people hungry, he will feed them; cold, he will clothethem; sick, he will nurse them; dead, he will bury them. Such will bethe language of the sovereign who holds the principle of universal love,and such his conduct. If we compare the two sovereigns, the words of theone are condemnatory of those of the other, and their actions areopposite. Let us suppose that their words are equally sincere, and thattheir actions will be made good,—that their words and actionswill correspond like the parts of a token, every word being carried intoeffect; and let us proceed to put the following questions on thecase:—Here is a year when a pestilence walks abroad among thepeople; many of them suffer from cold and famine; multitudes die in theditches and water-channels. If at such a time they might make anelection between the two sovereigns whom we have supposed, which wouldthey prefer? I apprehend there is no one under heaven, however stupid,though he may condemn the principle of universal love, but would at sucha time prefer to be under the sovereign who holds it. This is in wordsto condemn the principle, and, when there is occasion to choose betweenit and the opposite, to approve it;—words and conduct arehere in contradiction. I do not know how it is that throughout theempire scholars condemn the principle of universal love, whenever theyhear it.

Plain as the case is, their words in condemnation of it do not cease; butthey say, “This universal [mutual love]is benevolent and righteous. That we grant, but how can it be practised?The impracticability of it is like that of taking up the T‘aemountain, and leaping with it over the Keang or the Ho. We do, indeed,desire this universal love, but it is an impracticablething!”

Our Master said, “To take up the T‘ae mountain, andleap with it over the Keang or the Ho, is a thing which never has beendone, from the highest antiquity to the present time, since men were;but the exercise of mutual love and the interchange of mutualbenefits,—this was practised by the ancient sages and sixkings.”

How do you know that the ancient sages and the six kings practisedthis?

Our Master said, “I was not of the same age and time withthem, so that I could myself have heard their voices, or seen theirfaces; but I know what I say from what they have transmitted toposterity, written on bamboo or cloth, cut in metal or stone, engravenon their vessels.”

It is said in “The GreatDeclaration,”—“King Wăn waslike the sun or like the moon; suddenly did his brightness shine throughthe four quarters of the western region.”

According to these words, king Wăn exercised the principle ofuniversal love on a vast scale. He is compared to the sun or moon whichshines on all, without partial favour to any spot under theheavens;—such was the universal love of kingWăn.” What our Master insisted on was thusexemplified in him.

Again, not only does “The Great Declaration” speakthus;—we find the same thing in “The Declarationof Yu.” Yu said, “Ye multitudes, listen all to mywords. It is not only I who dare to say a word in favour ofwar;—against this stupid prince of Mëaou we mustexecute the punishment appointed by Heaven. I am therefore leading yourhosts, and go before you all to punish the prince ofMëaou.”

Thus Yu punished the prince of Meaou, not to increase his own riches andnobility, nor to obtain happiness and emolument, nor to gratify his earsand eyes;—he did it, seeking to promote what was advantageousto the empire, and to take away what was injurious to it. It appearsfrom this that Yu held the principle of universal love. What our Masterinsisted on may be found in him.

And not only may Yu thus be appealed to;—we have“The words of T‘ang” to the sameeffect. T‘ang said, “I, the child Le, presume touse a dark-coloured victim, and announce to Thee, O supreme HeavenlySovereign.—Now there is a great drought, and it is right Ishould be held responsible for it. I do not know but that I haveoffended against the Powers above and below. But the good I dare notkeep in obscurity, and the sinner I dare not pardon. The examination ofthis is with Thy mind, O God. If the people throughout the empire commitoffences, it is to be required of me. If I commit offences, it does notconcern the people.” From these words we perceive thatT‘ang, possessing the dignity ofsupreme king, and the wealth of the kingdom, yet did not shrink fromoffering himself as a sacrifice which might be acceptable to God and[other] spiritual Beings.” It appearsfrom this that T‘ang held the principle of universal love.What our Master insisted on was exemplified in T‘ang.

And not only may we appeal in this way to the“Declarations,” “Charges,”and “The Words of T‘ang,”—wefind the same thing in “The Poems of Chow.” One ofthose poems says,

“Wide and long is the Royal way,

It is straight as an arrow,

Without deflection, without injustice.

It is smooth as a whetstone.

The Royal way is plain and level,

The officers tread it;

Without injustice, without deflection.

The lower people see it.”

Is not this speaking of the [Royal] way inaccordance with our style? Anciently, Wăn and Woo, actingwith exact justice and impartiality, rewarded the worthy and punishedthe oppressive, allowing no favouritism to influence them towards theirown relatives. It appears from this that Wăn and Woo held theprinciple of universal love. What our Master insisted on was exemplifiedin them.—How is it that the scholars of the empire condemnthis universal love, whenever they hear of it? Plain as the case is, thewords of those who condemn the principle of universal love do not cease.They say, “It is not advantageous to the entire devotion toparents which is required;—it is injurious to filialpiety.” Our Master said, “Let us bring thisobjection to the test:—A filial son, having [thehappiness of] his parents at heart, considers how it is to besecured. Now, does he, so considering, wish men to love and benefit hisparents? or does he wish them to hate and injure hisparents?” On this view of the question, it must be evidentthat he wishes men to love and benefit his parents. And what must hehimself first do in order to gain this object? If I first address myselfto love and benefit men’s parents, will they for that returnlove and benefit to my parents? or if I first address myself to hatemen’s parents, will they for that return love and benefit tomy parents? It is clear that I must first address myself to love andbenefit men’s parents, and they will return to me love andbenefit to my parents. The conclusion is that a filial son has noalternative.—He must address himself in the first place tolove and do good to the parents of others. Ifit be supposed that this is an accidental course, to be followed onemergency by a filial son, and not sufficient to be regarded as ageneral rule, let us bring it to the test of what we find in the Booksof the ancient kings. It is said in the Ta Ya,

“Every word find its answer;

He threw me a peach;

Every action its recompense.

I returned him a plum.”

These words show that he who loves others will be loved, and that he whohates others will be hated. How is it that the scholars of the empirecondemn this principle of universal love, when they hear it?

Is it that they deem it so difficult as to be impracticable? But therehave been more difficult things, which yet have been done.[For instance], king Ling of King was fond ofsmall waists. In his time, the officers of King restricted themselves toa handful of rice, till they required a stick to raise themselves, andin walking had to hold themselves up by the wall. Now, it is a difficultthing to restrict one’s-self in food, but they were able todo it, because it would please king Ling.—It needs not morethan a generation to change the manners of the people, such is theirdesire to move after the pattern of their superiors.

[Again], Kow-tseen the king of Yueh, was fond ofbravery. He spent three years in training his officers to be brave; andthen, not knowing fully whether they were so, he set fire to the shipwhere they were, and urged them forward by a drum into the flames. Theyadvanced, one rank over the bodies of another, till an immense numberperished in the water or the flames; and it was not till he ceased tobeat the drum, that they retired. Those officers of Yueh might bepronounced to be full of reverence. To sacrifice one’s lifein the flames is a difficult thing, but they were able to do it, becauseit would please their king.—It needs not more than ageneration to change the manners of the people, such is their desire tomove after the pattern of their superiors. [Oncemore], duke Wăn of Tsin was fond of garments ofcoarse flax. In his time, the officers of Tsin wore wide clothes of thatfabric, with rams’ furs, leathern swordbelts, and coarsecanvas sandals. Thus attired, they went in to the duke’slevee, and went out and walked through the court. It is a difficultthing to wear such clothes, but they wereable to do it, because it would please dukeWăn.—It needs but a generation to change themanners of the people, such is their desire to move after the pattern oftheir superiors.

Now, little food, a burning ship, and coarse clothes,—theseare among the most difficult things to endure; but because the rulerwould be pleased with the enduring them, they were able [inthose cases] to do it. It needs no more than a generation tochange the manners of the people. Why? Because such is their desire tomove after the pattern of their superiors. And now, as to universalmutual love, it is an advantageous thing and easilypractised,—beyond all calculation. The only reason why it isnot practised is, in my opinion, because superiors do not take pleasurein it. If superiors were to take pleasure in it, stimulating men to itby rewards and praise, and awing them from opposition to it bypunishments and fines, they would, in my opinion, move toit,—the practice of universal mutual love, and theinterchange of mutual benefits,—as fire rises upwards, and aswater flows downwards:—nothing would be able to check them.This universal love was the way of the sage kings; it is the principleto secure peace for kings, dukes, and great men; it is the means tosecure plenty of food and clothes for the myriads of the people. Thebest course for the superior man is to well understand the principle ofuniversal love, and exert himself to practise it. It requires the rulerto be gracious, and the minister to be loyal; the father to be kind, andthe son to be filial; the elder brother to be friendly, and the youngerto be obedient. Therefore the superior man, with whom the chief desireis to see gracious rulers and loyal ministers; kind fathers and filialsons; friendly elder brothers and obedient younger ones, ought to insiston the indispensableness of the practice of universal love. It was theway of the sage kings; it would be the most advantageous thing for themyriads of the people.

2. Notwithstanding themutilations and corruptions in the text of the preceding Essay, itsgeneral scope is clearly discernible, and we obtain from it a sufficientaccount of Mih’s doctrine on the subject of“Universal Love.” We have now to consider theopposition offered to this doctrine byMencius. He was not the first, however, to be startled and offended byit. The Essay shows that it was resented as an outrage on the system oforthodox belief during all the lifetime of Mih and his immediatedisciples. Men of learning did not cease to be clamorous against it.From the allusions made by Mencius to its prevalence in his days, itwould appear that it had overcome much of the hostility which it atfirst encountered. He stepped forward to do battle with it; and thoughhe had no new arguments to ply, such was the effect of his onset, that“Universal Love” has ever since been considered,save by some eccentric thinkers, as belonging to the Limbo of ChineseVanity, among other things “abortive, monstrous, or unkindlymixed.”

We may approach the question conveniently by observing thatMih’s attempts to defend his principle were in several pointsfar from the best that could be made. His references to the examples ofYu, T‘ang, and the kings Wăn and Woo, are of thisnature. Those worthies well performed the work of their generation. Theypunished the oppressor, and delivered the oppressed. Earnest sentimentsof justice and benevolence animated their breasts and directed theircourse. But they never laid down the doctrine of “UniversalLove,” as the rule for themselves or others.

When he insists, again, that the people might easily be brought toappreciate and practise his doctrine, if their rulers would only setthem the example, he shows the same overweening idea of the influence ofsuperiors, and the same ignorance of human nature, which I have hadoccasion to point out in both Confucius and Mencius. His references toduke Wăn of Tsin, king Ling of Ts‘oo, andKow-tsëen of Yueh, and his argument from what they are saidto have effected, only move us to smile. And when he teaches that menare to be awed to love one another “ by punishments and fines, ” we feel thathe is not understanding fully what he says nor whereof he affirms.

Still, he has broadly and distinctly laid it down, that if men would onlyuniversally love one another, the evils which disturb and embitter humansociety would disappear. I do not say that he has taught the duty of universal love. His argument is conductedon the ground of expediency. Whether he had in hisown mind a truer, nobler foundation for hisprinciple, does not immediately appear. Be that as it may, his doctrinewas that men were to be exhorted to love one another,—to loveone another as themselves. According to him, “princes shouldbe as much for the States of others as for their own. One prince shouldbe for every other as for himself.” So it ought to be alsowith the heads of clans, with ministers, with parents, and with mengenerally.

Here it was that Mencius joined issue with him. He affirmed that“to love all equally did not acknowledge the peculiaraffection due to a parent.” It is to be observed that Mihhimself nowhere says that his principle was that of loving all EQUALLY. His disciples drew this conclusion from it.In the third Book of Mencius’ Works, we find one of them, EChe, contending that the expression in the Shoo-king, about the ancientkings acting towards the people “as if they were watchingover an infant,” sounded to him as if love were to be without difference of degree, the manifestation ofit simply commencing with our parents. To this Mencius repliedconclusively by asking, “Does E really think that aman’s affection for the child of his brother is merely likehis affection for the child of his neighbour?” With stillmore force might he have asked, “Is a man’saffection for his father merely like his affection for the father of hisneighbour?” Such a question, and the necessary reply to it,are implied in his condemnation of Mih’s system, as being“without father,” that is, denying the peculiaraffection due to a father. If Mih had really maintained that aman’s father was to be no more to him than the father of anyother body, or if his system had necessitated such a consequence,Mencius would only have done his duty to his country in denouncing him,and exposing the fallacy of his reasonings. As the case is, he wouldhave done better if he had shown that no such conclusion necessarilyflows from the doctrine of Universal Love, or its preceptive form thatwe are to love our neighbour as ourselves.

Of course it belonged to Mih himself to defend his views from theimputation. But what he has said on the point is not satisfactory. Inreply to the charge that his principle was injurious to filial piety, heendeavoured to show, that, by acting on it, a man would best secure thehappiness of his parents:—as headdressed himself in the first place to love, and do good to, theparents of others, they would recompense to him the love of, andgood-doing to, his parents. It might be so, or it might not. The replyexhibits strikingly in what manner Mih was conducted to the inculcationof “universal love,” and that really it had in hismind no deeper basis than its expediency. This is his weak point; and ifMencius, whose view of the constitution of human nature, and theobligation of the virtues, apart from all consideration of consequences,was more comprehensive and correct than that of Mih, had founded hisopposition on this ground, we could in a measure have sympathized withhim. But while Mih appeared to lose sight of the other sentiments of thehuman mind too much, in his exclusive contemplation of the power oflove, he did not doubt but his principle would make sons more filial,and ministers more devoted, and subjects more loyal. The passage which Ihave just referred to, moreover, does not contain the admission that thelove was to be without any difference of degree. The fact is, that he hardly seems to have realized the objection withwhich Mencius afterwards pressed the advocacy of his principle by hisfollowers. If he did do so, he blinked the difficulty, not seeing hisway to give a full and precise reply to it.

This seems to be the exact state of the case between the twophilosophers.—Mih stumbled on a truth, which, based on aright foundation, is one of the noblest that can animate the humanbreast, and affords the surest remedy for the ills of society. There isthat in it, however, which is startling, and liable to misrepresentationand abuse. Mencius saw the difficulty attaching to it, and unable tosympathize with the generosity of it, set himself to meet it with a mostvehement opposition. Nothing, certainly, could be more absurd than hisclassing Yang Choo and Mih Teih together, as equally the enemies ofbenevolence and righteousness. When he tries to ridicule Mih, and talkscontemptuously about him, how, if he could have benefited the kingdom,by toiling till he had rubbed off every hair of his body, he would havedone it,—this only raises up a barrier between himself andus. It reminds us of the hardness of nature which Ihave elsewhere charged against him.

3. Confucius, I think, might havedealt more fairly and generously with Mih. In writing of him, I calledattention to his repeated enunciation of “the goldenrule” in a negative form,—“What you donot wish done to yourself, do not do to others.” [1] In one place, indeed, he rises for a moment tothe full apprehension of it, and recognizes the duty of taking theinitiative,—of behaving to others in the first instance as hewould that they should behave to him. [2] Now, what is this but the practical exercise of theprinciple of universal love? “All things whatsoever ye wouldthat men should do to you, do ye even so tothem:”—this is simply the manifestation of therequirement, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself.” Confucius might have conceded, therefore, to Mih,that the rule of conduct which he laid down was the very best that couldbe propounded. If he had gone on to remove it from the basis ofexpediency, and place it on a better foundation, he would have done thegreatest service to his countrymen, and entitled himself to a placeamong the sages of the world.

On this matter I am happy to find myself in agreement with the“prince of literature,” Han Yu. “Ourliterati,” says he, “find fault with Mih becauseof what he has said on ‘The Estimation to be attached toConcord,’ [3] on ‘Universal Love,’on ‘The Estimation to be given to Men of Worth,’on ‘The Acknowledging of Spiritual Beings,’ [4] and on ‘Confucius’being in awe of great men, and, when he resided in any State, notblaming its great officers.’ [1] But when the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw finds faultwith assuming ministers, is not this attaching a similar value toconcord? When Confucius speaks of ‘overflowing in love toall, and cultivating the friendship of the good,’ and of how‘the extensive conferring of benefits constitutes asage,’ does he not teach universal love? When he advises‘the esteem of the worthy;’ when he arranged hisdisciples into ‘the four classes,’ so stimulatingand commending them; when he says that ‘the superior mandislikes the thought of his name not being mentioned afterdeath:’—does not this show the estimation he gaveto men of worth? When ‘he sacrificed as if the spiritualBeings were present,’ and condemned ‘those whosacrificed as if they were not really sacrificing,’ when hesaid, ‘When I sacrifice, I shall receiveblessing:’—was not this acknowledging spiritualBeings? The literati and Mih equally approve of Yaou and Shun, andequally condemn Keeh and Chow; they equally teach the cultivation of theperson, and the rectifying of the heart, reaching on to the goodgovernment of the kingdom, with all its States andfamilies:—why should they be so hostile to each other? In myopinion, the discussions which we hear are the work of their followers,vaunting on each side the sayings of their Teacher; there is no suchcontrariety between the real doctrines of the two Teachers. Confuciuswould have used Mih; and Mih would have used Confucius. If they wouldnot have used each other, they could not have been K‘ung andMih.”

4. It seems proper, in closingthis discussion of Mih’s views, to notice the manner in whichthe subject of “universal love” appears inChristianity. Its whole law is comprehended in the oneword—Love; but how wide is the scope of the term comparedwith all which it ever entered into the mind of Chinese sage orphilosopher to conceive!

It is most authoritative where the teachers of China are altogethersilent, and commands:—“Thou shalt love the Lord,thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thymind.” For the Divine Being Christianity thus demands fromall men supreme love;—the love of all that is majestic, awingthe soul; the love of all that is beautiful, wooing the heart; the loveof all that is good, possessing and mastering the entire nature. Such alove, existing, would necessitate obedience to every law, natural orrevealed. Christianity, however, goes on to specify the duties whichevery man owes, as the complement of love to God, to hisfellow-men:—“Owe no man anything, but to love oneanother, for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Forthis—‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’‘Thou shalt not kill,’ ‘Thou shalt notsteal,’ ‘Thou shalt not bear falsewitness,’ ‘Thou shalt not covet;’ andif there be any other commandment:—the whole is brieflycomprehended in this saying, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbouras thyself.’ ” This commandment is“like to” the other, only differing from it in notrequiring the supreme love which is due to Godalone. The rule which it prescribes,—such love to others aswe feel for ourselves,—is much more definitely andintelligibly expressed than anything we find in Mih, and is not liableto the cavils with which his doctrine was assailed. Such a love to men,existing, would necessitate the performance of every relative and socialduty; we could not help doing to others as we would that they should doto us.

Mih’s universal love was to find its scope and consummation inthe good government of China. He had not the idea of man as man, anymore than Confucius or Mencius. How can that idea be fully realized,indeed, where there is not the right knowledge of one living and trueGod, the creator and common parent of all? The love which Christianityinculcates is a law of humanity; paramount to all selfish, personalfeelings; paramount to all relative, local, national attachments;paramount to all distinctions of race or of religion. Apprehended in thespirit of Christ, it will go forth even to the love of enemies; it willenergize in a determination to be always increasing the sum ofothers’ happiness, limited only by the means of doing so.

But I stop. These prolegomena are the place for disquisition; but Ideemed it right to say thus much here of that true, universal love,which at once gives glory to God and effects peace on earth.

THE WORKS OF MENCIUS. [*]

BOOK I. [**]

KING HWUY OF LËANG. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius [went to] see king Hwuy of Leang.

[2] The king said, “Venerable Sir, since you have not counted itfar to come here, a distance of a thousand le, mayI presume that you are likewise provided with[counsels] to profit my kingdom?”

[3] Mencius replied, “Why must your Majesty use that word‘profit’? What I am likewise provided with are[counsels to] benevolence and righteousness; andthese are my only topics.

[4] “If your Majesty say,‘What is to be done to profit my kingdom?’ thegreat officers will say, ‘What is to be done to profit ourfamilies?’ and the [inferior] officersand the common people will say, ‘What is to be done to profitour persons?’ Superiors and inferiors will try to take theprofit the one from the other, and the kingdom will be endangered. Inthe kingdom of ten thousand chariots, the murderer of his ruler will be[the chief of] a family of a thousand chariots. Inthe State of a thousand chariots, themurderer of his ruler will be [the chief of] afamily of a hundred chariots. To have a thousand in ten thousand, and ahundred in a thousand, cannot be regarded as not a large allowance; butif righteousness be put last and profit first, they will not besatisfied without snatching all.

[5] “There neverwas a man trained to benevolence who neglected his parents. There neverwas a man trained to righteousness who made his ruler anafter-consideration.

6. “Let your Majestylikewise make benevolence and righteousness your onlythemes;—why must you speak of profit?”

II. [1] When Mencius [anotherday] was seeing king Hwuy of Lëang, the king[went and] stood [with him]by a pond, and, looking round on the wild geese and deer, large andsmall, said, “Do wise and good[princes] also take pleasure in thesethings?”

2. Mencius replied,“Being wise and good, they then have pleasure in thesethings. If they are not wise and good, though they have these things,they do not find pleasure.

[3] “It is saidin the Book of Poetry:—

- ‘When he planned the commencement of the Marvelloustower,

- He planned it, and defined it,

- And the people in crowds undertook the work,

- And in no time completed it.

- When he planned the commencement, [he said],“Be not in a hurry;”

- But the people came as if they were his children.

- The king was in the Marvellous park,

- Where the does were lying down,—

- The does so sleek and fat;

- With the white birds glistening.

- The king was by the Marvellous pond;—

- How full was it of fishes leaping about!’

King Wăn used the strength of the people to makehis tower and pond, and the people rejoiced [to do thework], calling the tower ‘the Marvelloustower,’ and the pond ‘the Marvellouspond,’ and being glad that he had his deer, his fishes, andturtles. The ancients caused their people to have pleasure as well asthemselves, and therefore they could enjoy it.

[4] “In the Declaration ofT‘ang it is said, ‘O sun, when wilt thou expire?We will die together with thee.’ The people wished[for Këeh’s death, though]they should die with him. Although he had his tower, his pond, birds andanimals, how could he have pleasure alone?”

III. [1] King Hwuy ofLëang said, “Small as my virtue is, in[the government of] my kingdom, I do indeed exertmy mind to the utmost. If the year be bad inside the Ho, I remove[as many of] the people [as]I can to the east of it, and convey grain to the country inside. If theyear be bad on the east of the river, I act on the same plan. Onexamining the governmental methods of the neighbouring kingdoms, I do not find there is any[ruler] who exerts his mind as I do. And yet thepeople of the neighbouring kings do not decrease, nor do my peopleincrease;—how is this?”

2. Mencius replied,“Your Majesty loves war; allow me to take an illustrationfrom war. [The soldiers move forward at] the soundof the drum; and when the edges of their weapons have been crossed,[on one side] they throw away their buff-coats,trail their weapons behind them, and run. Some run a hundred paces andthen stop; some run fifty paces and stop. What would you think if these,because [they had run but] fifty paces, shouldlaugh at [those who ran] a hundredpaces?” The king said, “They cannot do so. Theyonly did not run a hundred paces; but they also ran.”[Mencius] said, “Since your Majestyknows this, you have no ground to expect that your people will becomemore numerous than those of the neighbouring kingdoms.

[3] “Ifthe seasons of husbandry be not interfered with, the grain will be morethan can be eaten. If close nets are not allowed to enter the pools andponds, the fish and turtles will be more than can be consumed. If theaxes and bills enter the hill-forests [only] atthe proper times, the wood will be more than can be used. When the grainand fish and turtles are more than can be eaten, and there is more woodthan can be used, this enables the people to nourish their living and doall offices for their dead, without any feeling against any.[But] this condition, in which [thepeople] nourish their living, and do all offices to theirdead without having any feeling against any, is the first step in theRoyal way.

[4] “Let mulberry-trees be planted about the homesteads withtheir five acres, and persons of fifty years will be able to wear silk. In keeping fowls, pigs, dogs,and swine, let not their times of breeding be neglected, and persons ofseventy years will be able to eat flesh. Let there not be taken away thetime that is proper for the cultivation of the field-allotment of ahundred acres, and the family of several mouths will not suffer fromhunger. Let careful attention be paid to the teaching in the variousschools, with repeated inculcation of the filial and fraternal duties,and gray-haired men will not be seen upon the roads, carrying burdens ontheir backs or on their heads. It has never been that [theruler of a State] where these results were seen, persons ofseventy wearing silk and eating flesh, and the black-haired peoplesuffering neither from hunger nor cold, did not attain to the Royaldignity.

[5] “Your dogs and swine eat thefood of men, and you do not know to store up [of theabundance]. There are people dying from famine on the roads,and you do not know to issue [your stores for theirrelief]. When men die, you say, ‘It is not owingto me; it is owing to the year.’ In what does this differfrom stabbing a man and killing him, and then saying, ‘It wasnot I; it was the weapon’? Let your Majesty cease to lay theblame on the year, and instantly the people,all under the sky, will come to you.”

IV. 1. King Hwuy of Lëangsaid, “I wish quietly to receive yourinstructions.”

[2] Mencius replied, “Isthere any difference between killing a man with a stick and with asword?” “There is no difference,” wasthe answer.

3. [Menciuscontinued,] “Is there any difference between doingit with a sword and with governmental measures?”“There is not,” was the answer[again].

[4] [Menciusthen] said, “In [your]stalls there are fat beasts; in [your] stablesthere are fat horses. [But] your people have thelook of hunger, and in the fields there are those who have died offamine. This is leading on beasts to devour men.

5. “Beasts devour oneanother, and men hate them [for doing so]. When hewho is [called] the parent of the people conductshis government so as to be chargeable with leading on beasts to devourmen, where is that parental relation to the people?

[6] “Chung-ne said,‘Was he not without posterity who first made wooden images[to bury with the dead]?’[So he said,] because that man made the semblancesof men and used them [for thatpurpose];—what shall be thought of him who causeshis people to die of hunger?”

[V] [1] King Hwuy ofLëang said, “There was not in the kingdom astronger State than Ts‘in, as you, venerable Sir, know. Butsince it descended to me, on the east we were defeated byTs‘e, and then my eldest son perished; on the west we lostseven hundred le of territory to Ts‘in;and on the south we have sustained disgrace at the hands ofTs‘oo. I have brought shame on my departed predecessors, andwish on their account to wipe it away once for all. What course is to bepursued to accomplish this?”

[2] Mencius replied, “With aterritory [only] a hundred le square it has been possible to obtain the Royal dignity.

[3] “If your Majesty will[indeed] dispense a benevolent government to thepeople, being sparing in the use of punishments and fines, and makingthe taxes and levies of produce light, [so causingthat] the fields shall be ploughed deep, and the weeding wellattended to, and that the able-bodied, during their days of leisure,shall cultivate their filial piety, fraternal duty, faithfulness, andtruth, serving thereby, at home, their fathers and elder brothers, and,abroad, their elders and superiors; you will then have a people who canbe employed with sticks which they haveprepared to oppose the strong buff-coats and sharp weapons of[the troops of] Ts‘in andTs‘oo.

4. “[Therulers of] those [States] rob theirpeople of their time, so that they cannot plough and weed their fieldsin order to support their parents. Parents suffer from cold and hunger;elder and younger brothers, wives and children, are separated andscattered abroad.

5. “Those[rulers] drive their people into pitfalls or intothe water; and your Majesty will go to punish them. In such a case, whowill oppose your Majesty?

[6] “In accordancewith this is the saying,—‘The benevolent has noenemy!’ I beg your Majesty not to doubt [what Isaid].”

VI. [1] Mencius had an interview with king Sëang ofLëang.

2. When he came out, he said tosome persons, “When I looked at him from a distance, he didnot appear like a ruler; when I drew near to him, I saw nothingvenerable about him. Abruptly he asked me, ‘How can thekingdom, all under the sky, be settled?’

2. “I replied,‘It will be settled by being united under one[sway].’

3. “ ‘Whocan so unite it?’ [he asked].

4. “I replied,‘He who has no pleasure in killing men can so uniteit.’

[5] “ ‘Who can give it tohim?’ [he asked].

6. “I replied,‘All under heaven will give it to him. Does your Majesty knowthe way of the growing grain? During the seventh and eighth months, whendrought prevails, the plants become dry. Then the clouds collect denselyin the heavens, and send down torrents of rain, so that the grain erectsitself as if by a shoot. When it does so, who can keep it back? Nowamong those who are shepherds of men throughout the kingdom, there isnot one who does not find pleasure in killing men. If there were one whodid not find pleasure in killing men, all the people under the sky wouldbe looking towards him with outstretched necks. Such being indeed thecase, the people would go to him as water flows downwards with a rush,which no one can repress.”

VII. [1] King Seuen of Ts‘e asked, saying, “May I beinformed by you of the transactions of Hwan of Ts‘e andWăn of Tsin?”

[2] Mencius replied,“There were none of the disciples of Chung-ne who spoke about the affairs of Hwan and Wăn, andtherefore they have not been transmitted to[these] after-ages; your servant has not heard ofthem. If you will have me speak, let it be about [theprinciples of attaining to] the Royal sway.”

[3] [The king] said,“Of what kind must his virtue be who can [attainto] the Royal sway?”[Mencius] said, “If he loves andprotects the people, it is impossible to prevent him from attainingit.”

[4] [The king]said, “Is such an one as poor I competent to love and protectthe people?” “Yes,” was the reply.“From what do you know that I am competent tothat?” “I have heard,” said[Mencius], “from Hoo Heih the followingincident:—‘The king,’ said he,‘was sitting aloft in the hall, when some people appearedleading a bull past below it. The king saw it, and asked where the bullwas going, and being answered that they were going to consecrate a bellwith its blood, he said, “Let it go, I cannot bear itsfrightened appearance as if it were an innocent person going to theplace of death.” They asked in reply whether, if they did so,they should omit the consecration of the bell; but [theking] said, “How can that be omitted? Change itfor a sheep.” ’ I do not know whether thisincident occurred.”

[5] “It did,” said [the king],and [Mencius] replied, “The heart seenin this is sufficient to carry you to the Royal sway. The people allsupposed that your Majesty grudged [the animal],but your servant knows surely that it wasyour Majesty’s not being able to bear [the sightof the creature’s distress which made you do as youdid].”

6. The king said, “Youare right; and yet there really was [an appearanceof] what the people imagined. [But]though Ts‘e be narrow and small, how should I grudge a bull?Indeed it was because I could not bear its frightened appearance, as ifit were an innocent person going to the place of death, that therefore Ichanged it for a sheep.”

[7] Mencius said, “Letnot your Majesty deem it strange that the people should think yougrudged the animal. When you changed a large one for a small, how shouldthey know [the true reason]? If you felt pained byits [being led] without any guilt to the place ofdeath, what was there to choose between a bull and a sheep?”The king laughed and said, “What really was my mind in thematter? I did not grudge the value of the bull, and yet I changed it fora sheep! There was reason in the people’s saying that Igrudged [the creature].”

8. [Mencius] said, “There is no harm[in their saying so]. It was an artifice ofbenevolence. You saw the bull, and had not seen the sheep. So is thesuperior man affected towards animals, that, having seen them alive, hecannot bear to see them die, and, having heard their[dying] cries, he cannot bear to eat their flesh.On this account he keeps away from his stalls andkitchen.”

[9] The king was pleasedand said, “The Ode says,

- ‘What other men have in their minds,

- I can measure by reflection.’

This might be spoken of you, my Master. I indeed did thething, but when I turned my thoughts inward and sought for it, I couldnot discover my own mind. When you, Master, spoke those words, themovements of compassion began to work in my mind.[But] how is it that this heart has in it what isequal to the attainment of the Royal sway?”

[10] [Mencius]said, “Suppose a man were to make this statement to yourMajesty, ‘My strength is sufficient to lift three thousandcatties, but it is not sufficient to lift one feather; my eyesight issharp enough to examine the point of an autumn hair, but I do not see awaggon-load of faggots,’ would your Majesty allow what hesaid?” “No,” was the[king’s] remark, [andMencius proceeded], “Now here is kindnesssufficient to reach to animals, and yet no benefits are extended from itto the people;—how is this? is an exception to be made here?The truth is, the feather’s not being lifted is because thestrength was not used; the waggon-load of firewood’s notbeing seen is because the eyesight was not used; and thepeople’s not being loved and protected is because thekindness is not used. Therefore your Majesty’s not attainingto the Royal sway is because you do not do it, and not because you arenot able to do it.”

11. [Theking] asked, “How may the difference between himwho does not do [a thing] and him who is not ableto do it be graphically set forth?”[Mencius] replied, “In such a thing astaking the T‘ae mountain under your arm, and leaping with itover the North sea, if you say to people, ‘I am not able todo it,’ that is a real case of not being able. In such amatter as breaking off a branch from a tree at the order of a superior,if you say to people, ‘I am not able to do it,’ itis not a case of not being able to do it. And so yourMajesty’s not attaining to the Royal sway is not such a caseas that of taking the T‘ae mountain under your arm andleaping over the North sea with it; but it is a case like that ofbreaking off a branch from a tree.

[12] “Treat with the reverence due to age the elders in your own family, so that those in thefamilies of others shall be similarly treated; treat with the kindnessdue to youth the young in your own family, so that those in the familiesof others shall be similarly treated:—do this and the kingdommay be made to go round in your palm. It is said in the Book ofPoetry,

- ‘His example acted on his wife,

- Extended to his brethren,

- And was felt by all the clans and States;’

telling us how [King Wăn]simply took this [kindly] heart, and exercised ittowards those parties. Therefore the carrying out the[feeling of] kindness [by aruler] will suffice for the love and protection of all withinthe four seas; and if he do not carry it out, he will not be able toprotect his wife and children. The way in which the ancients camegreatly to surpass other men was no other than this, that they carriedout well what they did, so as to affect others. Now your kindness issufficient to reach to animals, and yet no benefits are extended from itto the people. How is this? Is an exception to be made here?

13. “By weighing weknow what things are light, and what heavy. By measuring we know whatthings are long, and what short. All things are so dealt with, and themind requires specially to be so. I beg your Majesty to measure it.

[14] “Your Majesty collects your equipments of war, endangers yoursoldiers and officers, and excites the resentment of the variousprinces:—do these things cause you pleasure in yourmind?”

15. The king said,“No. How should I derive pleasure from these things? Myobject in them is to seek for what I greatly desire.”

16. [Mencius] said, “May I hear from youwhat it is that your Majesty greatly desires?” The kinglaughed, and did not speak. [Mencius] resumed,“[Are you led to desire it], becauseyou have not enough of rich and sweet [food] foryour mouth? or because you have not enough oflight and warm [clothing] for your body? orbecause you have not enow of beautifully coloured objects to satisfyyour eyes? or because there are not voices and sounds cnow to fill yourears? or because you have not enow of attendants and favourites to standbefore you and receive your orders? Your Majesty’s variousofficers are sufficient to supply you with all these things. How canyour Majesty have such a desire on account of them?”“No,” said the king, “my desire is noton account of them.” [Mencius]observed, “Then, what your Majesty greatly desires can beknown. You desire to enlarge your territories, to have Ts‘inand Ts‘oo coming to your court, to rule the Middle States,and to attract to you the barbarous tribes that surround them. But to dowhat you do in order to seek for what you desire is like climbing a treeto seek for fish.”

17. “Is it so bad asthat?” said [the king]. “Iapprehend it is worse,” was the reply. “If youclimb a tree to seek for fish, although you do not get the fish, youhave no subsequent calamity. But if you do what you do in order to seekfor what you desire, doing it even with all your heart, you willassuredly afterwards meet with calamities.” The king said,“May I hear [what they willbe]?” [Mencius] replied,“If the people of Tsow were fighting with the people ofTs‘oo, which of them does your Majesty think wouldconquer?” “The people of Ts‘oo wouldconquer,” was the answer, and [Mencius]pursued, “So then, a small State cannot contend with a great,few cannot contend with many, nor can the weak contend with the strong.The territory within the seas would embrace nine divisions, each of athousand le square. All Ts‘e together isone of them. If with one part you try to subdue the other eight, what isthe difference between that and Tsow’s contending withTs‘oo? [With the desire which youhave], you must turn back to the proper course[for its attainment].

18. “Now if yourMajesty will institute a government whose action shall all bebenevolent, this will cause all the officers in the kingdom to wish tostand in your Majesty’s court, the farmers all to wish toplough in your Majesty’s fields, the merchants, bothtravelling and stationary, all to wish to store their goods in yourMajesty’s market-places, travellers and visitors all to wishto travel on your Majesty’s roads, and all under heaven whofeel aggrieved by their rulers to wish tocome and complain to your Majesty When they are so bent, who will beable to keep them back?”

19. The king said, “Iam stupid, and cannot advance to this. [But] Iwish you, my Master, to assist my intentions. Teach me clearly, andalthough I am deficient in intelligence and vigour, I should like to tryat least [to institute such agovernment].”

[20] [Mencius]replied, “They are only men of education, who, without acertain livelihood, are able to maintain a fixed heart. As to thepeople, if they have not a certain livelihood, they will be found not tohave a fixed heart. And if they have not a fixed heart, there is nothingwhich they will not do in the way of self-abandonment, of moraldeflection, of depravity, and of wild license. When they have thus beeninvolved in crime, to follow them up and punish them, is to entrap thepeople. How can such a thing as entrapping the people be done under therule of a benevolent man?

21. “Therefore anintelligent ruler will regulate the livelihood of the people, so as tomake sure that, above, they shall have sufficient wherewith to servetheir parents, and, below, sufficient wherewith to support their wivesand children; that in good years they shall always be abundantlysatisfied, and that in bad years they shall not be in danger ofperishing. After this he may urge them, and they will proceed to what isgood, for in this case the people will follow after that withreadiness.

22. “But now, thelivelihood of the people is so regulated, that, above, they have notsufficient wherewith to serve their parents, and, below, they have notsufficient where-with to support their wives and children;[even] in good years their lives are alwaysembittered, and in bad years they are in danger of perishing. In suchcircumstances their only object is to escape from death, and they areafraid they will not succeed in doing so;—what leisure havethey to cultivate propriety and righteousness?

[23] “If your Majestywishes to carry out [a benevolent government], whynot turn back to what is the essential step [to itsattainment]?

[24] “Let mulberry-trees be planted about the homesteads withtheir five acres, and persons of fifty years will be able to wear silk.In keeping fowls, pigs, dogs, and swine, let not their times of breedingbe neglected, and persons of seventy years will be able to eat flesh.Let there not be taken away the time that is proper for the cultivationof the field-allotment of a hundred acres, and the family of eightmouths will not suffer from hunger. Let careful attention be paid to theteaching in the various schools, with repeated inculcation of the filialand fraternal duties, and gray-haired men will not be seen upon theroads, carrying burdens on their backs or on their heads. It has neverbeen that [the ruler of a State] where theseresults were seen, the old wearing silk and eating flesh, and theblack-haired people suffering neither from hunger nor cold, did notattain to the Royal dignity.”

KING HWUY OF LEANG. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] CHWANG PAOU, [having gone to]see Mencius, said to him, “I had an audience of the king. HisMajesty told me about his loving music, and I was not prepared with anything to reply to him. What do youpronounce concerning [that] love ofmusic?” Mencius said, “If the king’slove of music were very great, the kingdom of Ts‘e would benear to [being well governed].”

[2] Another day, Mencius had an audience ofthe king, and said, “Your Majesty, [I haveheard,] told the officer Chwang about your love ofmusic;—was it so?” The king changed colour, andsaid, “I am unable to love the music of the ancient kings; Ionly love the music that suits the manners of the[present] age.”

3. [Mencius] said, “If yourMajesty’s love of music were very great, Ts‘e, Iapprehend, would be near to [being well governed].The music of the present day is just like the music of antiquity[for effecting that].”

4. [Theking] said, “May I hear [the proof ofwhat you say]?” “Which is the morepleasant,” was the reply,—“to enjoymusic by yourself alone, or to enjoy it along with others?”“To enjoy it along with others,” said[the king]. “And which is the morepleasant,” pursued[Mencius],—“to enjoy musicalong with a few, or to enjoy it along with many?”“To enjoy it along with many,” replied[the king].

5. [Mencius wenton], “Will you allow your servant to speak to yourMajesty about music?

6. “Your Majesty ishaving music here.—The people hear the sound of your bellsand drums, and the notes of your reeds and flutes, and they all, withaching heads, knit their brows, and say to one another,‘That’s how our king loves music! But why does hereduce us to this extremity [of distress]? Fathersand sons do not see one another; elder brothers and younger brothers,wives and children, are separated and scattered abroad.’Again, your Majesty is hunting here. The people hear the noise of yourcarriages and horses, and see the beauty of your plumes and pennons, andthey all, with aching heads, knit their brows, and say to one another,‘That’s how our king loves hunting! But why does he reduce us to this extremity ofdistress? Fathers and sons do not see one another; elder brothers andyounger brothers, wives and children, are separated and scatteredabroad.’ This is from no other cause, but that you do notgive the people to have pleasure as well as yourself.

7. “Your Majesty ishaving music here.—The people hear the sound of your bellsand drums, and the notes of your reeds and flutes, and they all,delighted and with joyful looks, say to one another, ‘Thatsounds as if our king were free from all sickness! What fine music he isable to have!’ Again, your Majesty is huntinghere.—The people hear the noise of your carriages and horses,and see the beauty of your plumes and pennons, and they all, delightedand with joyful looks, say to one another, ‘That looks as ifour king were free from all sickness! How he is able tohunt!’ This is from no other reason but that you cause thepeople to have pleasure as well as yourself.

[8] “If yourMajesty now will make pleasure a thing common to the people andyourself, the Royal sway awaits you.”

II. [1] King Seuen ofTs‘e asked, “Was it so that the park of kingWăn contained seventy square le? ” Mencius replied, “It is so in theRecords.”

2. “Was it so large asthat?” said [the king]. “Thepeople,” said [Mencius],“still considered it small.” “Mypark,” responded [the king],“contains [only] forty square le, and the people still consider it large. How isthis?” “The park of kingWăn,”—said[Mencius], “contained seventy square le, but the grass-cutters and fuel-gatherers[had the privilegeof] resorting to it, and so also had the catchers ofpheasants and hares. He shared it with the people, and was it not withreason that they looked on it as small?

[3] “When I firstarrived at your frontiers, I enquired about the great prohibitoryregulations before I would venture to enter [thecountry]; and I heard that inside the border-gates there wasa park of forty square le, and that he who killed adeer in it, whether large or small, was held guilty of the same crime asif he had killed a man. In this way those forty square le are a pit-fall in the middle of the kingdom. Is it not withreason that the people look upon [your park] aslarge?”

III. [1] King Seuenof Ts‘e asked, saying, “Is there any way[to regulate one’s maintenance] ofintercourse with neighbouring States?” Mencius replied,“There is. But it requires a benevolent[ruler] to be able with a great State to serve asmall;—as, for instance, T‘ang served Koh, andking Wăn served the hordes of the Keun. And it requires awise [ruler] to be able with a small State toserve a great,—as, for instance, king T‘ae servedthe Heun-yuh, and Kow-tseen served Woo.

[2] “He who with agreat [State] serves a small is one who delights in Heaven; and he who with asmall [State] serves a great is one who fearsHeaven. He who delights in Heaven will affect with his love andprotection all under the sky; and he who fears Heaven will so affect hisown State.

[3] “It is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘I revere the majesty of Heaven,

- And thus preserve its [favour].’”

[4] The king said, “A great saying![But] I have an infirmity,—I lovevalour.”

5. [Mencius] replied, “I beg your Majestynot to love small valour. If a man brandishes his sword, looks fierce,and says, ‘How dare he withstand me?’ this is thevalour of a common man, and can only be used against one individual. Ibeg your Majesty to change it into great valour.

[6] “It is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘The king rose majestic in his wrath.

- He marshalled his troops,

- To stop the march to Keu;

- To consolidate the prosperity of Chow;

- To meet the expectations of all under heaven.’

This was the valour of king Wăn. KingWăn, by one burst of his anger, gave repose to all the peopleunder heaven.

[7] “It is saidin the Book of History, ‘Heaven, having produced the inferiorpeople, made for them rulers, and made for them instructors, with thepurpose that they should be aiding to God, and gave them distinctionthroughout the four quarters [of the land].Whoever are offenders, and whoever are innocent, here am I[to deal with them].How dare any under heaven give indulgence to their refractorywills?’ One man was pursuing a violent and disorderly coursein the kingdom, and king Woo was ashamed of it. This was the valour ofking Woo, and he also, by one burst of his anger, gave repose to all thepeople under heaven.

8. “Let now yourMajesty, in one burst of anger, give repose to all the people underheaven. The people are only afraid that your Majesty does not lovevalour.”

IV. [1] King Seuen ofTs‘e [went to] see Mencius in the Snowpalace, and said to him, “Do men of talents and virtuelikewise find pleasure in [such a place as]this?” Mencius replied, “They do. And if people[generally] do not get [similarpleasure], they condemn their superiors.

2. “For them, whenthey do not get that, to condemn their superiors is wrong; but when thesuperiors of the people do not make [such]pleasure a thing common to the people and themselves, they also dowrong.

3. “When [aruler] rejoices in the joy of his people, they also rejoicein his joy; when he sorrows for the sorrow of his people, they alsosorrow for his sorrow. When his joy extends to all under heaven, and hissorrow does the same, it never was that in such a case [theruler] did not attain to the Royal sway.

[4] “Formerly, duke King of Ts‘e asked the ministerGan, saying, ‘I wish to make a tour to Chuen-foo andChaou-woo, and then to bend my way southward, along the shore, till Icome to Lang-yay. What shall I do specially, that my tour may be fit tobe compared with those made by the former kings?’

[5] “The minister Gan replied,‘An excellent inquiry! When the son of Heaven visited thefeudal princes, it was called “a tour ofinspection;” that is, he surveyed the States under theircare. When the princes attended at his court, it was called“a report of office;” that is, they reported[their administration of] their offices.[Thus] neither of those proceedings was withoutits proper object. [And moreover], in the springthey examined the ploughing, and supplied any deficiency [ofseed]; in the autumn they examined the reaping, and assistedwhere there was any deficiency [of yield]. Thereis the saying of the Hea dynasty,

- “If our king go not from home,

- Whence to us will comfort come?

- If our king make not his round,

- Whence to us will help be found?”

That excursion and that round were a pattern for theprinces.

[6] “‘Now the state of things is different. A host marches[in attendance on the ruler], and the provisionsare consumed. The hungry are deprived oftheir food, and there is no rest for those who are called to toil.Maledictions are uttered by one to another with eyes askance, and thepeople proceed to the commission of wickedness. The[Royal] orders are violated and the people areoppressed; the supplies of food and drink flow away like water. The[rulers] yield themselves to the current; or theyurge their way against it; they are wild; they arelost:—[these things proceed] to thegrief of the [smaller] princes.

7. “‘Descending along with the current, and forgetting toreturn,’ is what I call yielding to it. ‘Goingagainst it, and forgetting to return,’ is what I calledurging their way against it. ‘Pursuing the chase withoutsatiety’ is what I call being wild. ‘Delighting inspirits without satiety’ is what I call being lost.

8. “ ‘Theformer kings had no pleasures to which they gave themselves as on theflowing stream, no doings which might be so characterized as wild andlost.

[9] “ ‘It isfor you, my ruler, to take your course.’

[10] “DukeKing was pleased. He issued a grand proclamation through the State, andwent out [himself] and occupied a shed in thesuburbs. From that time he began to open [hisgranaries] for the relief of the wants [of thepeople], and, calling the grand music master, said to him,‘Make for me music to suit a prince and his minister wellpleased with each other.’ It was then that the Che Shaou andKë‘oh Shaou was made, in the poetry to which itwas said,

‘What fault is it one’s rulerto restrain?’

He who restrains his ruler loves him.”

[V] [1] King Seuen of Ts‘e asked saying,“People all tell me to pull down the Brilliant hall andremove it;—shall I pull it down, or stop [themovement for that object]?”

[2] Mencius replied,“The Brilliant hall is the hall appropriate to the kings. Ifyour Majesty wishes to practise Royal government, do not pull itdown.”

[3] The king said, “May I hearfrom you what Royal government is?”“Formerly,” was the reply, “kingWăn’s government of K‘e was thefollowing:—From the husbandman [there was requiredthe produce of] one ninth [of theland]; the descendants of officers were salaried; at thepasses and in the markets, [strangers] wereinspected, but goods were not taxed; therewere no prohibitions respecting the ponds and weirs; the wives andchildren of criminals were not involved in their guilt. There were theold and wifeless, or widowers, the old and husbandless, or widows; theold and childless, or solitaries; and the young and fatherless, ororphans:—these four classes are the most destitute underheaven, and have none to whom they can tell [theirwants], and king Wăn, in the institution of hisgovernment with its benevolent action, made them the first objects ofhis regard. It is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘The rich may get through,

- But alas for the helpless and solitary!’ ”

[4] The king said,“Excellent words!” [Mencius]said, “Since your Majesty deems them excellent, why do younot put them into practice?” “I have aninfirmity,” said the king; “I am fond ofsubstance.” “Formerly,” replied[Mencius], “duke Lëw wasfond of substance. It is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘He stored up [the produce] in thefields and in barns;

- He tied up dried meat and grain

- In bottomless bags and sacks;

- That he might hold [his people] together, andglorify [his tribe].

- Then with bows and arrows all ready,

- With shields and spears, and axes, large and small,

- He commenced his march.’

In this way those who remained in their old seat had theirstores in the fields and in barns, and those who marched had their bagsof grain. It was not till after this that he commenced his march. Ifyour Majesty is fond of substance, let the people have the opportunityto gratify the same feeling, and what difficulty will there be in yourattaining to the Royal sway?”

[5] The king said, “Ihave an infirmity; I am fond of beauty.” The reply was,“Formerly king T‘ae was fond of beauty, and loved his wife. It is said in the Book ofPoetry,

- ‘The ancient duke T‘an-foo

- Came in the morning, galloping his horses,

- Along the banks of the western rivers,

- To the foot of Mount K‘e;

- And there he and the lady Këang

- Came, and together looked out for a site on which tosettle.’

At that time, in the seclusion of the house, there were nodissatisfied women, and, abroad, there were no unmarried men. If yourMajesty is fond of beauty, let the people be able to gratify the samefeeling, and what difficulty will there be in your attaining to theRoyal sway?”

VI. 1. Mencius said to king Seuen ofTs‘e, “[Suppose that] one ofyour Majesty’s servants were to entrust his wife and childrento the care of his friend, while he went [himself]into Ts‘oo to travel, and that, on his return, [heshould find] that [the friend] hadcaused his wife and children to suffer from cold andhunger,—how ought he to deal with him?” The kingsaid, “He should cast him off.”

[2] [Mencius] proceeded,“[Suppose that] the chief criminaljudge could not regulate the officers of justice under him, how shouldhe be dealt with?” The king said, “He should bedismissed.”

3. [Menciusagain] said, “When within the four borders[of your kingdom] there is not good government,what is to be done?” The king looked to the right and left,and spoke of other matters.

VII. [1] Mencius, having [goneto] see king Seuen ofTs‘e, said to him, “When men speak of‘an ancient kingdom,’ it is not meant thereby thatit has lofty trees in it, but that it has ministers [sprungfrom families that have been noted in it] for generations.Your Majesty has no ministers with whom you are personally intimate.Those whom you advanced yesterday are gone to-day, and you do not knowit.”

2. The king said, “Howshall I know that they have no ability, and avoid employing them atall?”

[3] The reply was, “A ruleradvances to office [new] men of talents and virtue[only] as a matter of necessity. As he therebycauses the low to overstep the honourable and strangers to overstep hisrelatives, ought he to do so but with caution?

4. “When all thoseabout you say [of a man], ‘He is a manof talents and virtue,’ do not immediately[believe them]. When your great officers all say,‘He is a man of talents and virtue,’ do notimmediately [believe them]. When your people allsay, ‘He is a man of talents and virtue,’ thenexamine into his character; and, when you find that he is such indeed,then afterwards employ him. When all those about you say, ‘Hewill not do,’ do not listen to them. When your great officersall say, ‘He will not do,’ do not listen to them.When your people all say, ‘He will not do,’ thenexamine into his character; and when you find that he will not do, thenafterwards send him away.

5. “When those aboutyou all say [of a man], ‘He deservesdeath,’ do not listen to them. When your great officers allsay, ‘He deserves death,’ do not listen to them.When your people all say, ‘He deserves death,’then examine into his case; and when you find that he deserves death,then afterwards put him to death. In accordance with this we have thesaying, ‘The people put him to death.’

[6] “Act in this way and you will be the parent of thepeople.”

VIII. [1] King Seuen ofTs‘e asked, saying, “Was it so thatT‘ang banished Këeh, and king Woo smoteChow?” Mencius replied, “It is so in theRecords.”

2. [Theking] said, “May a subject put his ruler todeath?”

[3] The reply was,“He who outrages benevolence is called a ruffian; he whooutrages righteousness is called a villain. The ruffian and villain wecall a mere fellow. I have heard of the cutting off of the fellow Chow;I have not heard of the putting a ruler to death [in hiscase].”

IX. 1. Mencius, [havinggone to] see king Seuen of Ts‘e, said,“If you are going to build a large mansion, you will surelycause the Master of the workmen to look out for large trees; and when hehas found them, your Majesty will be glad, thinking they will be fit forthe object. Should the workmen hew them so as to make them too small,then you will be angry, thinking that they will not answer for thepurpose. Now a man spends his youth in learning [theprinciples of right government], and, when grown up tovigour, he wishes to put them in practice:—if your Majestysay to him, ‘For the present put aside what you have learned,and follow me,’ what shall we say?

2. “Here now you havea gem in the stone. Although it be worth 240,000[taels], you will surely employ your chief lapidary to cut and polish it. But whenyou come to the government of your kingdom, you say, ‘For thepresent put aside what you have learned and followme;’—how is it that you herein act differentlyfrom your calling in the lapidary to cut and polish thegem?”

[X] [1] The people ofTs‘e attacked Yen, and conquered it.

[2] King Seuenasked, saying, “Some tell me not to take possession of it,and some tell me to take possession of it. For a kingdom of ten thousandchariots to attack another of the same strength, and to complete theconquest of it in fifty days, is an achievement beyond[mere] human strength. If I do not take it,calamities from Heaven will surely come upon me:—what do yousay to my taking possession of it?”

[3] Mencius replied,“If the people of Yen will be pleased with your takingpossession of it, do so.—Among the ancients there was[one] who acted in this way, namely king Woo. Ifthe people of Yen will not be pleased with your taking possession of it,do not. Among the ancients there was one who acted in this way, namelyking Wăn.

[4] “Whenwith [the strength of] your kingdom of tenthousand chariots you attacked another of the same strength, and they met your Majesty’s armywith baskets of rice and vessels of congee, was there any other reasonfor this but that they [hoped to] escape out offire and water? If [you make] the water more deepand the fire more fierce, they will just in like manner make anotherrevolution.”

XI. [1] The people ofTs‘e having attacked Yen and taken possession of it, the[other] princes proposed to take measures todeliver Yen. King Seuen said, “As the princes are many ofthem consulting to attack me, how shall I prepare myself forthem?” Mencius replied, “I have heard of one whowith seventy le gave law to the whole kingdom, butI have not heard of [a ruler] who with a thousand le was afraid of others.

[2] “The Book of Historysays, ‘When T‘ang began his work of punishment, hecommenced with Koh. All under heaven had confidence in him. When thework went on in the east, the wild tribes of the west murmured. When itwent on in the south, those of the north murmured. They said,“Why does he make us the last?” The looking of thepeople for him was like the looking in a time of great drought forclouds and rainbows. The frequenters of the markets stopped not; thehusbandmen made no change [in their operations].While he took off their rulers, he consoled the people. [Hisprogress] was like the falling of seasonable rain, and thepeople were delighted.’ It is said[again] in the Book of History, ‘Wehave waited for our prince [long]; theprince’s coming is our reviving.’

3. “Now[the ruler of] Yen was tyrannizing over hispeople, and your Majesty went and punished him. The people supposed thatyou were going to deliver them out of the water and the fire, and withbaskets of rice and vessels of congee they met your Majesty’shost. But you have slain their fathers andelder brothers, and put their sons and younger brothers in chains; youhave pulled down the ancestral temple [of therulers], and are carrying away its preciousvessels:—how can such a course be admitted? [Theother States of] the kingdom were afraid of the strength ofTs‘e before; and now when with a doubled territory you do notexercise a benevolent government, this puts the arms of the kingdom inmotion [against you].

4. “If your Majestywill make haste to issue an order, restoring [yourcaptives] old and young, and stopping [the removalof] the precious vessels; [and if then]you will consult with the people of Yen, appoint [forthem] a [new] ruler, and afterwardswithdraw from the country:—in this way you may still be ableto stop [the threatened attack].”

XII. [1] There had been askirmish between [some troops of] Tsow and Loo,[in reference to which,] duke Mih asked, saying,“Of my officers there were killed thirty-three men and noneof the people would die in their defence. If I would put them to death,it is impossible to deal so with so many; if I do not put them to death,then there is [the crime unpunished of] theirlooking on with evil eyes at the death of their officers, and not savingthem:—how is the exigency of the case to bemet?”

[2] Mencius replied,“In calamitous years and years of famine, the old and weak ofyour people who have been found lying in ditches and water-channels, andthe able-bodied who have been scattered about to the four quarters, haveamounted to thousands. All the while, your granaries, O prince, have been stored with rice and other grain, andyour treasuries and arsenals have been full, and not one of yourofficers has told you [of thedistress];—so negligent have the superiors[in your State] been, and cruel to theirinferiors. The philosopher Tsăng said, ‘Beware,beware. What proceeds from you will return to you.’ Now atlast the people have had an opportunity to return [theirconduct]; do not you, O prince, blame them.

3. “If you willpractise a benevolent government, then the people will love all abovethem, and will die for their officers.”

XIII. [1] DukeWăn of T‘ăng asked, saying,“T‘ăng is a small State, and liesbetween Ts‘e and Ts‘oo. Shall I serveTs‘e? or shall I serve Ts‘oo?”

[2] Mencius replied,“This is a matter in which I cannot counsel you. If you willhave me speak, there is but one thing [I cansuggest]. Dig [deep] your moats; build[strong] your walls; then guard them along withthe people; be prepared to die [in their defence],and [have] the people [sothat] they will not leave you:—this is a coursewhich may be put in practice.”

XIV. [1] DukeWăn of T‘ăng asked, saying,“The people of Ts‘e are going to fortifySĕeh, and [the movement] occasions me great alarm; what is the propercourse for me to take in the case?”

[2] Menciusreplied, “Formerly, when king T‘ae dwelt in Pin,the Teih were [continually] making incursions uponit. He [therefore] left it, and went to the footof Mount K‘e, and there took up his residence. He did nottake that situation as having selected it;—it was a matter ofnecessity.

[3] “If you do good,among your descendants in future generations there shall be one who willattain to the Royal sway. The superior man lays the foundation of theinheritance, and hands down the beginning [which he hasmade], doing what can be continued [by hissuccessors]. As to the accomplishment of the great result,that is with Heaven. What is that[Ts‘e] to you, O prince? you havesimply to make yourself strong to do good.”

XV. 1. Duke Wăn ofT‘ăng asked, saying,“T‘ăng is a small State. I do my utmostto serve the great kingdoms [on either side ofit], but I cannot escape [suffering fromthem]. What is the proper course for me to pursue in thecase?” Mencius replied, “Formerly, when kingT‘ae dwelt in Pin, the Teih were continually makingincursions upon it. He served them with skins and silks, and still hesuffered from them. He served them with dogs and horses, and still hesuffered from them. He served them with pearls and pieces of jade, andstill he suffered from them. On this he assembled his old men, andannounced to them, saying, ‘What the Teih want is myterritory. I have heard this,—thatthe superior man does not injure his people for that which he nourishesthem with. My children, why should you be troubled about having noruler. I will leave this.’[Accordingly] he left Pin, crossed over MountLëang, [built] a town at the foot ofMount K‘e, and dwelt there. The people of Pin said,‘He is a benevolent man;—we must not losehim.’ Those who followed him [looked]like crowds going to market.

4. “On the other hand[a prince] may say, ‘[Thecountry] has been held [by myancestors] for generations, and is not what I can undertaketo dispose of in my person. I will go to the death for it, and will notleave it.’

5. “I beg you, Oprince, to make your election between these two courses.”

XVI. [1] Duke P‘ing ofLoo was about to go out [one day], when hisfavourite Tsang Ts‘ang begged [to ask]him, saying, “On other days, when your lordship has gone out,you have given instructions to the officers as to where you were going.But now the horses have been put to your carriage, and the officers donot yet know where you are going. I venture to request yourorders.” The duke said, “I am going to see thephilosopher Măng.” “What!”said the other. “That you demeanyourself, O prince, by what you are doing, to pay the first visit to acommon man, is, I apprehend, because you think that he is a man oftalents and virtue. [Our rules of] propriety andrighteousness must have come from such men; but on the occasion of thisMăng’s second mourning, his observances exceededthose of the former. Do not go to see him, O prince.” Theduke said, “I will not.”

[2] The officerYoh-ching entered [the court], and had anaudience. “Prince,” said he, “why haveyou not gone to see Măng K‘o?”“One told me,” was the reply, “that onthe occasion of Mr Mang’s second mourning, his observancesexceeded those of the former, and therefore I did not go to seehim.” [Yoh-ching] said, “Howis this? By what your lordship calls ‘exceeding,’you mean, I suppose, that on the former occasion he used the ceremoniesappropriate to an inferior officer, and on the latter those appropriateto a great officer; that he first used three tripods, and afterwardsfive.” “No,” said the duke,“I refer to the greater excellence of the coffin, the shell,the grave-clothes, and the shroud.’[Yoh-ching] replied, “That cannot becalled ‘exceeding.’ That was the differencebetween being poor and being rich.”

3. [Afterthis] the officer Yoh-ching [went to]see Mencius, and said, “I told the ruler about you, and hewas consequently coming to see you, when his favourite TsangTs‘ang stopped him, and he did not carry his purpose intoeffect.” [Mencius] said, “Aman’s advance is effected, it may be, by others, and thestopping him is, it may be, from the efforts of others. But to advance aman or to stop his advance is [really] beyond thepower of other men. My not finding [the rightprince] in the marquis of Loo, is from Heaven. How could thatscion of the Tsang family cause me not to find [the rulerthat would suit me]?”

BOOK II. [*]

KUNG-SUN CH‘OW. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Kung-sun Ch‘ow said,“Master, if you were to obtain the ordering of the governmentin Ts‘e, could you promise yourself the accomplishment ofsuch successful results as were realized by Kwan Chung and the ministerGan?”

2. Mencius said, “You,Sir, are indeed a [true] man of Ts‘e.You know about Kwan Chung and the minister Gan, and nothing more.

[3] “One askedTsăng Se, saying, ‘To which, my[good] Sir, do you give thesuperiority,—to yourself or to Tsze-loo?’ Tsang Selooked uneasy, and said, ‘He was an object of veneration tomy grandfather.’ ‘Then,’ pursued theman, ‘do you give the superiority to yourself, or to KwanChung?’ Tsăng Se flushed with anger, wasdispleased, and said, ‘How do you compare me to Kwan Chung?Considering how entirely he possessed [the confidenceof] his ruler, how long he had the direction of thegovernment of the State, and how low [after all]was what he accomplished, how is it that you compare me tohim?’

4. “Thus,”added Mencius, “Tsăng Se would not play Kwan Chung, and is it what you desire for me,that I should do so?”

5. [Kung-sunCh‘ow] said, “Kwan Chung raised hisruler to be the leader of all the other princes, and the minister Ganmade his ruler illustrious; and do you still think that it would not beenough for you to do what they did?”

[6] “To raise[the ruler of] Ts‘e to the Royaldignity would [simply] be like turning round thehand,” was the reply.

[7] “So!” returned the other. “Theperplexity of your disciple is hereby very much increased! And there wasking Wăn, with all the virtue which belonged to him, and whodid not die till he had reached a hundred years; yet his influence hadnot penetrated to all under heaven. It required king Woo and the duke ofChow to continue his course, before that influence greatly prevailed.And now you say that the Royal dignity may be so easilyobtained:—is king Wăn then not worthy to beimitated?”

[8] [Mencius] said,“How can king Wăn be matched? FromT‘ang to Woo-ting there had arisen six or seven worthy andsage sovereigns; all under heaven had been long attached to Yin. Thelength of time made a change difficult, and Woo-ting gave audience toall the princes and possessed the whole kingdom, as if it had been athing which he turned round in his palm. [Then]Chow was removed from Woo-ting by no great interval of time. There werestill remaining some of the ancient families, and of the old manners, ofthe influence which had emanated [from the earliersovereigns], and of their good government. Moreover, there were the viscount of Wei and his secondson, his Royal Highness Pe-kan, the viscount of Ke, and Kaou Kih, allmen of ability and virtue, who gave their joint assistance to Chow[in his government]. In consequence of thesethings it took him a long time to lose the kingdom. There was not a footof ground which he did not possess; there was not one of all the peoplewho was not his subject. So it was on his side, while kingWăn made his beginning from a territory of[only] a hundred square le, and therefore it was difficult for him [immediately to attainto the Royal dignity].

[9] “The people ofTs‘e have the saying, ‘A man may have wisdom anddiscernment, but that is not like embracing the favourable opportunity;a man may have [good] hoes, but that is not likewaiting for the [favourable] seasons.’The present time is one in which [the Royaldignity] may be easily attained.

10. “In theflourishing periods of the sovereigns of Hëa, of Yin, and ofChow, the [Royal] territory did not exceed athousand le and Ts‘e embraces as much.Cocks crow and dogs bark to one another all the way to its four borders,so that Ts‘e also possesses the [requisite numberof] people. No change is needed for the enlargement of itsterritory, nor for the collecting of a population. If [itsruler] will put in practice a benevolent government, no powercan prevent his attaining to the Royal sway.

11. “Moreover, neverwas there a time farther removed than this from the appearance of a trueking; never was there a time when the sufferings of the people fromoppressive government were more intense than this. The hungry are easilysupplied with food, and the thirsty with drink.

12. “Confucius said,‘The flowing progress of virtue is more rapid than thetransmission of orders by stages and couriers.’

13. “At the presenttime, in a country of ten thousand chariots, let a benevolent governmentbe exercised, and the people will be delighted with it, as if they wererelieved from hanging by the heels. With half the merit of the ancients,double their achievement is sure to be realized. It is only at this timethat such could be the case.”

II. [1] Kung-sun Ch‘ow asked[Mencius], saying, “Master, if you were to be appointed a high noble andprime minister of Ts‘e, so as to carry your principles intopractice, though you should thereupon [raise the rulerto] be head of all the other princes or[even] to be king, it would not be to be wonderedat; but in such a position would your mind be perturbed ornot?” Mencius replied, “No. At forty I attained toan unperturbed mind.”

[2] [Chow] said, “Then, Master, you are farbeyond Măng Pun.” “[The mereattainment of] that,” said[Mencius], “is not difficult. Thescholar Kaou attained to an unperturbed mind at an earlier period oflife than I did.”

3. “Is there any[proper] way to an unperturbed mind?”asked [Chow]; and the reply was,“Yes.

[4] “Pih-kung Yewhad this way of nourishing his valour:—His flesh did notshrink [from a wound], and his eyes did not turnaside [from any thrusts at them]. He consideredthat to submit to have a hair pulled out by any one was as great[a disgrace] as to be beaten in the market-place,and that what he would not receive from [a common man inhis] loose garments of hair-cloth, neither should he receivefrom the ruler of ten thousand chariots. He viewed stabbing the ruler often thousand chariots just as stabbing a fellow in cloth of hair. Hefeared not any of the princes. A bad word addressed to him he alwaysreturned.

[5] “The valour whichMăng She-shay nourished spoke on thiswise:—‘I look upon conquering and not conqueringin the same way. To measure the enemy and then advance; to calculate thechances of victory and then engage:—this is to stand in aweof the opposing force. How can I make certain of conquering? I can onlyrise superior to all fear.’

[6] “Măng She-shayresembled the philosopher Tsăng, and Pih-kung Yëw resembled Tsze-hëa. I do not knowto the valour of which the superiority should be ascribed; butMăng She-shay attended to what was of the greaterimportance.

[7] “Formerly,the philosopher Tsăng said to Tsze-seang, ‘Do youlove valour? I heard an account of great valour from the Master,[who said that it speaksthus]:—“If on self-examination I findthat I am not upright, shall I not be afraid of [a common manin his] loose garments of haircloth; if on self-examination Ifind that I am upright, I will go forward against thousands and tens ofthousands.” ’

[8] “WhatMăng She-shay maintained, however, was his physical energymerely, and was not equal to what the philosopher Tsăngmaintained, which was [indeed] of the greaterimportance.”

[9] [Ch‘ow] said, “May I ventureto ask [the difference between] your unperturbedmind, Master, and that of the scholar Kaou?”[Mencius] answered, “Kaou says,‘What you do not find in words, do not seek for in your mind;what you do not find in your mind, do not seek for bypassion-effort.’ [Thislast]—not to seek by passion-effort for what youdo not find in your mind—may be conceded; but not to seek in your mind for what you do not find inwords ought not to be conceded. For the will is the leader of thepassionnature; and the passion-nature pervades and animates the body.The will is [first and] chief, and thepassion-nature is subordinate to it. Therefore [I]say, Maintain firm the will, and do no violence to thepassion-nature.

[10] [Ch‘ow observed], “Since yousay that the will is chief and the passion-nature subordinate to it, howdo you also say, Maintain firm the will, and do no violence to thepassion-nature?” The reply was, “When the will isexclusively active, then it moves the passion-nature; and when thepassion-nature is exclusively active, it moves the will. For instancenow, the case of a man falling or running is an exertion of hispassion-nature, and yet it moves his mind.”

[11] “I venture toask” [said Ch‘ow again],“wherein you, Master, have the superiority.”[Mencius] said, “I understand words. Iam skilful in nourishing my vast, flowing,passion-nature.”

12. [Ch‘owpursued,] “I venture to ask what you mean by yourvast, flowing, passion-nature.” The reply was, “Itis difficult to describe it.

13. “This is thepassion-nature:—It is exceedingly great, and exceedinglystrong. Being nourished by rectitude and sustaining no injury, it fillsup all between heaven and earth.

14. “This is thepassion-nature:—It is the mate and assistant of righteousnessand reason. Without this [man’s nature]is in a state of starvation.

15. “It is produced bythe accumulation of righteous deeds, and cannot be attained byincidental acts of righteousness. If the minddo not feel complacency in the conduct, [the naturebecomes] starved. Hence it is that I say that Kaou has neverunderstood righteousness, because he makes it something external.

16. “There must be the[constant] practice [ofrighteousness], but without the object [of therebynourishing the passion-nature]. Let not the mind forget[its work], but let there be no assisting thegrowth. Let us not be like the man of Sung. There was a man at Sung whowas grieved that his growing corn was not longer, and so he pulled itup. He then returned home, looking very stupid, and said to his people,‘I am very tired to-day; I have been helping the corn to growlong.’ His son ran to look at it, and found the corn allwithered. There are few people in the world who [do not dealwith their passion-nature as if they] were thus assistingtheir corn to grow long. Some indeed consider it of no benefit to them,and neglect it;—they do not weed their corn. They who assistit to grow long pull out their corn. [What they dois] not only of no benefit [to thenature], but it also injures it.”

[17] [Kung-sun Ch‘ow further asked,]“What do you mean by saying that you understandwords?” [Mencius] replied,“When speeches are one-sided, I know how [the mindof the speaker] is clouded over; when they are extravagant, Iknow wherein [the mind] is snared; when they areall-depraved, I know how [the mind] has departed[from principle]; when they are evasive, I knowhow [the mind] is at its[wit’s] end. [Theseevils], growing in the mind,injure the [principles of the] government, and,displayed in the government, are hurtful to the conduct of affairs. Whena sage shall again arise, he will certainly agree with[these] my words.”

[18] On thisCh‘ow observed, “Tsae Wo and Tsze-kung were cleverin making speeches; Jen New, the disciple Min, and Yen Yuen, while theirwords were good, were distinguished for their virtuous conduct.Confucius united both the qualities, [but stillhe] said, ‘In the matter of speeches I am notcompetent.’—Then, Master, have you attained to bea sage?”

[19] [Mencius] replied, “Oh! what words arethese? Formerly Tsze-kung asked Confucius, saying, ‘Master,are you a sage?’ and was answered, ‘To be a sageis what I cannot [claim]; but I learn withoutsatiety, and teach without being tired.’ Tsze-kung rejoined,‘You learn without satiety;—that shows yourwisdom. You teach without being tired;—that shows yourbenevolence. Benevolent and wise:—Master, you are asage.’ Now, since Confucius would not accept the position ofa sage, what words were those [you spake aboutme]?”

20. [Ch‘owsaid], “Formerly, it seems to me, I have heardthat Tsze-hea, Tsze-yëw, and Tsze-chang had each one memberof a sage, and that Jen New, the disciple Min, and Yen Yuen had all themembers, but in small proportions. I venture to ask with which of theseyou are pleased to rank yourself.”

21. [Mencius] replied, “Let us drop[speaking about] these if youplease.”

[22] [Ch‘owthen] asked, “What do you say of Pih-e and E Yin?” “Theirways,” said [Mencius], “weredifferent [from mine]. Not to serve a prince noremploy a people whom he did not approve; in a time of good government totake office, and in a time of disorder to retire;—this was[the way of] Pih-e. [Tosay], ‘Whom may I not serve as my ruler? Whom mayI not employ as my people?’ In a time of good government totake office, and in a time of disorder to do the same:—thiswas [the way of] E Yin. When it was proper to gointo office, then to go into office, and when it was proper to keepaloof from office, then to keep aloof; when it was proper to continue init long, then to do so, and when it was proper to withdraw from itquickly, then so to withdraw:—that was [the wayof] Confucius. These were all sages of antiquity, and I havenot attained to do what they did; but what I wish to do is to learn tobe like Confucius.”

23. [Ch‘ow] said, “ComparingPih-e and E Yin with Confucius, are they to be placed in the same rankwith him?” The reply was, “No. Since there wereliving men until now, there never was [another]Confucius.”

24. “Then,”said [Ch‘ow], “did they haveany points of agreement [with him]?”“Yes,” said [Mencius];“if they had been rulers over a hundred le of territory, they would all of them have brought all thefeudal princes to attend at their court, and would have possessed allunder the sky And none of them, to obtain that, would have committed oneact of unrighteousness, or put to death one innocent person. In thesepoints they agreed with him.”

[25] [Ch‘ow] said, “I venture toask wherein he differed from them.”[Mencius] replied, “Tsae Wo, Tsze-kung,and Yew Joh had wisdom sufficient to know the sage. [Even if we rank them] low, theywould not have demeaned themselves to flatter their favourite.

26. “Tsae Wo said,‘According to my view of the Master, he is far superior toYaou and Shun.’

27. “Tsze-kung said,‘By viewing the ceremonial ordinances [of aruler] we know [the character of] hisgovernment; and by hearing his music we know [thatof] his virtue. Along the distance of a hundred ages, I canarrange, [according to their merits], the line oftheir kings, so that not one can escape me; and from the birth ofmankind downwards there has not been [another likeour] Master.’

28. “Yew Joh said,‘Is it only among men that it is so? There is the k‘e-lin among quadrupeds, thephœnix among birds, the T‘ae mountain amongant-hills, the Ho and the sea among rain-pools. [Thoughdifferent in degree], they are the same in kind. And so thesages among mankind are the same in kind. But they stand out from theirfellows, and rise up above the crowd; and from the birth of mankind tillnow there never has been one so complete as Confucius.’”

III. [1] Mencius said,“He who, using force, makes a pretence to benevolence becomesthe leader of the princes, and he must be possessed of a large State. Hewho, using virtue, practises benevolence becomes the king, and he neednot wait till he has a large State. T‘ang did it with[only] seventy le, and kingWan with [only] a hundred le.

[2] “When one byforce subdues men they do not submit to him in heart, but because theirstrength is not adequate [toresist]. When one subdues men by virtue, in theirhearts’ core they are pleased, and sincerely submit, as wasthe case with the seventy disciples in their submission to Confucius.What is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘From the west to the east,

- From the south to the north,

- There was not a thought but did him homage,’

is an illustration of this.”

IV. [1] Mencius said,“Benevolence brings glory, and the opposite of it bringsdisgrace. For [the rulers of] the present day tohate disgrace, and yet live complacently doing what is not benevolent,is like hating moisture and yet living in a low situation.

[2] “If[a ruler] hates disgrace, his best course is toesteem virtue and honour [virtuous] scholars,giving the worthiest of them places [of dignity]and the able offices [of trust]. When throughoutthe State there is leisure and rest [from externaltroubles], taking advantage of such a season, let him clearlydigest the measures of his government with their penal sanctions, andeven great States will stand in awe of him.

[3] “It issaid in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘Before the sky was dark with rain,

- I gathered the roots of the mulberry tree,

- And bound round and round my window and door.

- Now, ye people below,

- Dare any of you despise my house?’

“Confucius said, ‘Did not he who made this odeunderstand the way [of governing]?’ Whowill dare to insult him who is able rightly to govern his State?

[4] “[But] now [therulers] take advantage of the time when throughout theirStates there is leisure and rest [from externaltroubles] to abandon themselves to pleasure and indolentindifference,—thus seeking calamities for themselves.

5. “Calamity andhappiness are in all cases men’s own seeking.

6. “This isillustrated by what is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘Always strive to accord with the will [ofheaven],

- So shall you be seeking for much happiness;’

and by the passage of the T‘ae-keah,‘Calamities sent by Heaven may be avoided, but when we bringon the calamities ourselves, it is not possible to live.’”

[V] [1] Mencius said,“If [a ruler] give honour to men oftalents and virtue and employ the able, so that offices shall all befilled by individuals of the highest distinction, then all the scholars of the kingdom will be pleased, andwish to stand in his court.

[2] “If in the market-places he levy a ground-rent on the shopsbut do not tax the goods, or enforce the [proper]regulations without levying a ground-rent, then all traders of thekingdom will be pleased, and wish to store their goods in hismarket-places.

[3] “If at thefrontier-gates there be an inspection of the persons, but no chargeslevied, then all the travellers of the kingdom will be pleased, and wishto be found on his roads.

[4] “If the husbandmen be required to give their material aid[in cultivating the public field], and no leviesbe made [of the produce of their own], then allthe farmers in the kingdom will be pleased, and wish to plough in hisfields.

[5] “If from the[occupiers of the] people’s dwellingshe do not exact the cloth required from the individual[idler] or the quotafor residences, then all the people in the kingdom will be pleased, andwish to be his people.

[6] “If[a ruler] can truly practise these five things,then the people of neighbouring States will look up to him as a parent.From the first birth of mankind until now never has any one led childrento attack their parents, and succeeded in his enterprise. Such[a ruler] will not have an enemy under the sky,and he who has no enemy under the sky is the minister of Heaven. Neverhas there been such a case where [the ruler] didnot attain to the royal dignity.”

VI. [1] Mencius said, “All men have a wind which cannot bear[to see the sufferings of] others.

2. “The ancient kingshad this commiserating mind, and they had likewise, as a matter ofcourse, a commiserating government. When witha commiserating mind there was practised a commiserating government, tobring all under heaven to order was [as easy] asto make [a small thing] go round in the palm.

[3] “The ground on which I say that all men have a mind whichcannot bear [to see the suffering of] others isthis:—Even now-a-days, when men suddenly see a child about tofall into a well, they will all experience a feeling of alarm anddistress. They will feel so not that they may thereon gain the favour ofthe child’s parents; nor that they may seek the praise oftheir neighbours and friends; nor from a dislike to the reputation of[being unmoved by] such a thing.

[4] “Lookingat the matter from this case, [we may see that] tobe without this feeling of distress is not human, and that it is nothuman to be without the feeling of shame and dislike, or to be withoutthe feeling of modesty and complaisance, or to be without the feeling ofapproving and disapproving.

5. “That feeling ofdistress is the principle of benevolence; the feeling of shame anddislike is the principle of righteousness; the feeling of modesty andcomplaisance is the principle of propriety; and the feeling of approvingand disapproving is the principle of knowledge.

[6] “Men have thesefour principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, havingthese four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot[manifest them], they play the thief withthemselves; and he who says of his ruler thathe cannot [manifest them], plays the thief withhis ruler.

7. “Since we all havethe four principles in ourselves, let us know to give them all theirdevelopment and completion, and the issue will be like that of a firewhich has begun to burn, or of a spring which has begun to find vent.Let them have their full development, and they will suffice to love andprotect all [within] the four seas; let them bedenied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to servehis parents with.”

VII. [1] Mencius said,“Is the arrow-maker [naturally] morewanting in benevolence than the maker of mail? [Andyet], the arrow-maker’s only fear is lest[his arrows] should not wound men, and the fear ofthe maker of mail is lest men should be wounded. So it is as between thepriest and the coffin-maker. [The choice of] aprofession therefore is a thing in which it is very necessary to becareful.

[2] “Confucius said,‘The excellence of a neighbourhood consists in its virtuousmanners. If a man, in selecting a residence, do not fix on one wheresuch prevail, how can he be wise?’ Now benevolence belongs tothe most honourable nobility of Heaven, and is the quiet home where manshould dwell. Since no one can hinder us from being so, if we are notbenevolent, this shows our want of wisdom.

[3] “He who is[thus] neither benevolent nor wise will be withoutpropriety and righteousness, and must be the servant of[other] men. To be the servant of men and yetashamed of such servitude is like a bow-maker’s being ashamedto make bows, or an arrow-maker’s being ashamed to makearrows.

4. “If [aman] be ashamed of being in such a case, his best course isto practise benevolence.

[5] “He who[would be] benevolent is like the archer. Thearcher adjusts himself, and then shoots. If he shoot and do not hit, hedoes not murmur against those who surpass himself:—he simplyturns round, and seeks the [cause of failure] inhimself.”

VIII. [1] Mencius said,“When any one told Tsze-loo that he had a fault, he wasglad.

[2] “When Yu heardgood words, he bowed [to the speaker].

[3] “Thegreat Shun had a [still] greater[quality]:—he regarded goodness as thecommon property of himself and others, giving up his own way to followothers, and delighting to copy [the example of]others,—in order to practise what was good.

[4] “From the time that heploughed and sowed, exercised the potter’s art and was afisherman, to that when he was emperor, he was always learning fromothers.

5. “To take examplefrom others to practise what is good is to help men in the samepractice. Therefore there is no attribute of the superior man greaterthan his helping men to practise what is good.”

IX. [1] Mencius said, “Pih-e would notserve a ruler whom he did not approve, nor be friendly with any one whomhe did not esteem. He would not stand in the court of a bad man, norspeak with a bad man. To stand in a bad man’s court, or tospeak with a bad man, would have been in his estimation the same as tostand with his court robes and court cap amid mire and charcoal.Pursuing our examination of his dislike to what was evil, [wefind] that he thought it necessary, if he were standing witha villager whose cap was not rightly adjusted, to leave him with a highair as if he were going to be defiled. Hence it was, that, though someof the princes made application to him with very proper messages, hewould not accept [their invitations]. That refusalto accept [their invitations] was because hecounted it inconsistent with his purity to go to them.

[2] “Hwuyof Lëw-hëa was not ashamed [toserve] an impure ruler, nor did he think it low to be in asmall office. When called to employment, he did not keep his talents andvirtue concealed, but made it a point to carry out his principles. Whenneglected and left out of office, he did not murmur; and when straitenedby poverty, he did not grieve. Accordingly, he would say,‘You are you, and I am I. Although you stand by my side withbare arms and breast, how can you defile me?’ In this way,self-possessed, he associated with men indifferently, and did not feelthat he lost himself. If pressed to remain in office, he would remain.He would remain in office when so pressed, because he did not feel thathis purity required him to go away.”

[3] Mencius said,“Pih-e was narrow-minded, and Hwuy of Lëw-hëa was wanting in self-respect.The superior man will not follow either narrow-mindedness or the want ofself-respect.”

KUNG-SUN CH‘OW. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Menciussaid, “Opportunities of time [vouchsafedby] Heaven are not equal to advantages of situation[afforded by] the earth, and advantages ofsituation [afforded by] the earth are not equal tothe strength [arising from the] accord of men.

[2] “[There is a city], with an inner wallof three le in circumference and an outer wall ofseven. [The enemy] surround and attack it, but arenot able to take it. Now, to surround and attack it, there must havebeen vouchsafed to them by Heaven the opportunity of time, and in suchcase their not taking it is because opportunities of time[vouchsafed by] Heaven are not equal to advantagesof situation [afforded by] the earth.

3. “[Thereis a city] whose walls are as high and moats as deep as could be desired, and where the arms and mail[of its defenders] are distinguished for theirsharpness and strength, and the [stores of] riceand grain are abundant; yet it has to be given up and abandoned. This isbecause advantages of situation [afforded by] theearth are not equal to the [strength arising fromthe] accord of men.

[4] “In accordance with these principles it is said,‘A people is bounded in not by the limits of dykes andborders; a State is secured not by the strengths of mountains andstreams; the kingdom is overawed not by the sharpness of arms[and strength] of mail.’ He who findsthe proper course has many to assist him, and he who loses it has few.When this—the being assisted by few—reaches theextreme point, [a ruler’s] ownrelatives and connexions revolt from him. When the being assisted bymany reaches its extreme point, all under heaven become obedient[to the ruler].

5. “When one to whomall under heavenare are prepared to become obedient attacks one fromwhom his own relatives and connexions are ready to revolt,[what must the result be?] Therefore the trueruler will [prefer] not [to]fight, but if he do fight, he is sure to overcome.”

II. [1] As Mencius was about to goto court to the king, the king sent a person to him with thismessage:—“I was wishing to come and see you. But Ihave got a cold, and may not expose myself to the wind. In the morning Iwill hold my court. I do not know whether you will give me theopportunity of seeing you?” [Mencius]replied, “Unfortunately I amunwell, and not able to go to court.”

[2] Next day he went out to pay avisit of condolence to the Tung-kwoh family, when Kung-sunCh‘ow said to him, “Yesterday you declined[going to the court] on the ground of beingunwell, and to-day you are paying a visit of condolence:—maynot this be regarded as improper?”“Yesterday,” said [Mencius],“I was unwell; to-day I am better:—why should Inot pay this visit?”

[3] [In the meantime] the king sent a messenger to inquire about his illness,and a physician [also] came [from thecourt]. Măng Chung replied to them,“Yesterday, when the king’s order came, he wasfeeling a little unwell, and could not go to the court. To-day he was alittle better and hastened to go to court. I do not know whether he canhave reached it [by this time] or not.”[Having said this,] he sent several men tointercept [Mencius] on the way, and say to himthat he begged him, before he returned, to be sure and go to thecourt.

[4] [Onthis, Mencius] felt himself compelled to go to KingCh‘ow’s, and there stop the night. The officerKing said to him, “In the family there is [therelation of] father and son; beyond it there is[that of] ruler and minister. These are thegreatest relations among men. Between father and son the ruling principle is kindness; between ruler andminister the ruling principle is respect. I have seen the respect of theking to you, Sir, but I have not seen in what way you show respect tohim.” The reply was, “Oh! what words are these?Among the people of Ts‘e there is no one who speaks to theking about benevolence and righteousness. Is it because they think thatbenevolence and righteousness are not admirable? No; but in their heartsthey say, ‘This man is not fit to be spoken with aboutbenevolence and righteousness.’ Thus they manifest adisrespect than which there can be none greater. I do not dare to setforth before the king any but the ways of Yaou and Shun. There istherefore no man of Ts‘e who respects the king so much as Ido.”

[5] King-tsze said,“Not so; that was not what I meant. In the Book of Rites itis said, ‘When a father calls, the son must go to him withouta moment’s hesitation; when the prince’s ordercalls, the carriage must not be waited for.’ You werecertainly going to court, but when you heard the king’smessage, you did not carry the purpose out. This does seem as if yourconduct were not in accordance with that rule ofpropriety.”

6. [Mencius] answered him, “How can yougive that meaning to my conduct? The philosopher Tsăng said,‘The wealth of Tsin and Ts‘oo cannot be equalled.Their [rulers] have their wealth, and I have mybenevolence. They have their rank; and I have my righteousness. Whereinshould I be dissatisfied [as inferior tothem]?’ Now were these sentiments not right?Seeing that the philosopher Tsăng gave expression to them,there is in them, I apprehend, a [real] principle.Under heaven there are three things universally acknowledged to behonourable:—rank; years; and virtue. In courts, rank holdsthe first place of the three; in villages, years; and for helpingone’s generation and presiding over the people, virtue. Howcan the possession of only one of them be presumed on to despise one whopossesses the other two?

7. “Therefore, aprince who is to accomplish great deeds will certainly have ministerswhom he does not call to go to him. When he wishes to consult with them,he goes to them. [The ruler] who does not honourthe virtuous and delight in their ways of doing to this extent is notworth having to do with.

[8] “Accordingly, sodid T‘ang behave to E Yin:—he learned of him, andthen employed him as his minister, and so without difficulty he becameking. And so did duke Hwan behave to Kwan Chung:—he learnedof him, and then employed him as his minister, and so without difficultyhe became leader of the princes.

[9] “Now throughout the kingdom[the territories of] the princes are of equalextent and in their achievements they are on a level. Not one of them isable to exceed the others. This is from no other reason but that theylove to make ministers of those whom they teach, and do not love to makeministers of those by whom they might be taught.

[10] “So did T‘angbehave to E Yin, and duke Hwan to Kwan Chung, that they would notventure to call them [to them]. If even Kwan Chungcould not be called to him [by his ruler], howmuch less may he be called who would not play the part of KwanChung!”

III. [1] Ch‘in Tsin asked [Mencius], saying,“Formerly, when you were inTs‘e, the king sent you a present of 2,000 taels of finesilver, and you refused to accept it. When you were in Sung, 1,400 taelswere sent to you, which you accepted; and when you were inSëeh, 1,000 taels were sent, which you[likewise] accepted. If your declining the gift inthe first case was right, your accepting it in the latter cases waswrong. If your accepting it in the latter cases was right, yourdeclining it in the first case was wrong. You must accept, Master, oneof these alternatives.”

2. Mencius said, “Idid right in all the cases.

[3] “When I wasin Sung, I was about to take a long journey. Travellers must be providedwith what is necessary for their expenses. The[prince’s] messagewas—‘A present against travellingexpenses.’ Why should I not have received it?

4. “When I was inSëeh, I was apprehensive for my safety, and wished to takemeasures for my protection. The message [with thegift] was—‘I have heard that you areapprehensive for your safety, and therefore I send you this to help youin procuring weapons.’ Why should I not have received it?

5. “But as to the casein Ts‘e, I had then no occasion for money. To send a man agift, when he has no occasion for it, is to bribe him. How can one claimto be a superior man, and allow himself to be taken with abribe?”

IV. [1] Mencius, having gone to P‘ing-luh, said to the governor of it, “If[one of] your spearmen should lose his place inthe ranks three times in one day, would you, Sir, put him to death ornot?” “I would not wait till he had done so threetimes,” was the reply.

[2] [Mencius] continued,“Well then, you, Sir, have lost your place in the ranks manytimes. In calamitous years and years of famine, the old and feeble ofyour people who have been found lying in ditches and water-channels, andthe able-bodied who have been scattered about to the four quarters, haveamounted to thousands.” “This is not a case inwhich I, Keu-sin, can take it upon me to act.”

[3] “Here,” said [Mencius],“is a man who receives charge of the sheep and cattle ofanother, and undertakes to feed them for him;—of course hemust seek for pasture-ground and grass for them. If, after seeking forthese, he cannot find them, will he return his charge to the owner? orwill he stand [by] and see them die?”“Herein,” said [thegovernor], “I am guilty.”

4. Another day Mencius had anaudience of the king, and said to him, “Of the governors ofyour Majesty’s cities I am acquainted with five; but the onlyone who knows his fault is K‘ung Keu-sin.” He thenrelated to the king the conversation which he had had [withthat officer], and the king said, “In this matterI am the guilty one.”

[V] [1] Mencius said to Ch‘e Wa, “There seemed to bereason in your declining [the governorship] ofLing-k‘ëw, andrequesting to be appointed chief criminal judge, because the[latter office] would afford you the opportunityof speaking your mind. But now several months have elapsed; and have youfound nothing about which you might speak?”

[2] [On this]Ch‘e Wa remonstrated [on some matter]with the king; and, his counsel not being taken, he resigned his office,and went away.

3. The people of Ts‘esaid, “In the course which he marked out for Ch‘eWa he did well; but as to the course which he pursues for himself, we donot know.”

4. His disciple Kung Too told himthese remarks.

5. [Mencius] said, “I have heard that whenhe, who is in charge of an office, is prevented from performing itsduties, he should take his departure, and that he on whom is theresponsibility of giving his opinions, when his words are disregarded,should do the same. [But] I am in charge of nooffice, and on me is no responsibility to speak out myviews;—may not I act freely and without restraint either ingoing forward or in retiring?”

VI. [1] Mencius, occupying theposition of a high dignitary in Ts‘e, went from it on amission of condolence to T‘ăng, and the king sentWang Hwan, governor of Kah, [with him] asassistant-commissioner. Wang Hwan, morning and evening, waited upon him,but, during all the way to T‘ăng and back toTs‘e, [Mencius] never spoke to himabout the affairs of the mission.

[2] Kung-sunCh‘ow said [to Mencius],“The position of a high dignitary of Ts‘e is not asmall one, and the way from Ts‘e toT‘ăng is not short;—how was it thatduring all the way from Ts‘e to T‘ăngand back, you never spoke [to Hwan] about theaffairs of the mission?” “There were the properparties to attend to them; why should I speak [to him aboutthem]?”

VII. [1] Mencius [went] from Ts‘e to bury[his mother] in Loo. When he returned toTs‘e, he stopped at Ying, and Ch‘ung Yu begged[to put a question to] him, saying,“Formerly, in ignorance of my incompetency, you employed meto superintend the business of making the coffin. As [youwere then pressed by] the urgency [of thebusiness], I did not venture to put any question to you; butnow I wish to take the liberty to submit the matter. The wood, itappeared to me, was too good.”

[2] [Mencius] replied, “Anciently, therewas no rule for [the thickness of] either theinner or the outer coffin. In middleantiquity, the inner coffin was made seven inches thick, and the outerthe same. This was done by all from the son of Heaven down to the commonpeople, and not simply for the beauty of the appearance, but becausethey thus satisfied [the natural feelings of] thehuman heart.

3. “If prevented[by statutory regulations] from making theircoffins thus, men cannot have the feeling of pleasure; and if they havenot the money [to make them thus], they cannothave that feeling. When they were not prevented, and had the money, theancients all used this style;—why should I alone not doso?

4. “And moreover, isthis alone no satisfaction to a man’s heart—toprevent the earth from getting near to the bodies of his dead?

5. “I have heard thatthe superior man will not for all the world be niggardly to hisparents.”

VIII. [1] Shin T‘ung, on his privateauthority, asked [Mencius], saying,“May Yen be attacked?” Mencius said,“It may. Tsze-k‘wae had no right to give Yen toanother man; and Tsze-che had no right to receive Yen fromTsze-k‘wae. [Suppose] there were anofficer here, with whom you, Sir, were pleased, and that, withoutannouncing the matter to the king, you were privately to give to himyour salary and rank, and [suppose that] thisofficer, also without the king’s orders, were privately toreceive them from you;—would [such atransaction] be allowable? Andwhere is the difference between [the case of Yenand] this?”

[2] The people of Ts‘eattacked Yen, and some one asked [Mencius] saying,“Is it true that you advised Ts‘e to attackYen?” He replied, “No. Shin T‘ung askedme whether Yen might be attacked, and I replied that it might, on whichthey proceeded to attack it. If he had asked me who might attack it, Iwould have answered him that the minister of Heaven might do so. Supposethe case of a murderer, and that one asked me, ‘May this manbe put to death?’ I would answer him, ‘Hemay.’ If he [further] asked me,‘Who may put him to death?’ I would answer him,‘The chief criminal judge.’ But now with[one] Yen to attack[another] Yen:—how should I haveadvised this?”

IX. [1] Thepeople of Yen having rebelled, the king said, “I am very muchashamed [when I think] of Mencius.”

[2] Ch‘in Këa said[to him], “Let not your Majesty betroubled. Whether does your Majesty consider yourself or the duke ofChow the more benevolent and wise?” The king replied,“Oh! what words are these?”[Ch‘in Kea] rejoined, “Theduke of Chow employed Kwan-shuh to over-see [the heirof] Yin, but Kwan-shuh rebelled with [the peopleof] Yin. If, knowing [that this wouldhappen], he yet employed him, he was not benevolent. If heemployed him without knowing it, he wasnot wise. The duke of Chow was [thus] notperfectly benevolent and wise, and how much less can your Majesty beexpected to be so! I beg to [go and] see Mencius,and relieve [your Majesty] of that[feeling].”

[3] [Accordingly]he saw Mencius, and asked him, saying, “What kind of man wasthe duke of Chow?” “An ancient sage,”was the reply. “Is it true,” pursued[the other], “that he employedKwan-shuh to oversee [the heir of] Yin, and thatKwan-shuh rebelled with [the people of]Yin?” “It is,” said[Mencius]. [Ch‘inKea] asked, “Did the duke of Chow know that hewould rebel, and [thereupon] employhim?” “He did not know it,” was thereply. “Then though a sage, he still fell intoerror.” “The duke of Chow,” said[Mencius], “was the younger brother,and Kwan-shuh the elder. Was not the error of the duke of Chowreasonable?

[4] “Moreover, when thesuperior men of old had errors, they reformed them; but when thesuperior men of the present day have errors, they persist in them. Theerrors of the superior men of old were like the eclipses of the sun andmoon. All the people witness them; and when they have resumed theirusual appearance, all the people look up to them [with theirformer admiration]. But do superior men of the present daymerely persist [in their errors]?—theygo on to make excuses for them as well.”

[X] [1] Mencius gave up hisoffice [in Ts‘e], and [waspreparing to] return [to his nativeState].

[2] The king went to see him, and said,“Formerly I wished to see you, but found no opportunity to doso. When I got that opportunity, and stood by you in the same court, Iwas exceedingly glad. [But] now again you areabandoning me and returning home;—I do not know if hereafterI may have another opportunity of seeing you.” “Ido not venture to make any request,” was the reply,“but indeed it is what I desire.”

[3] Another day, theking said to the officer She, “I wish to give Mencius a housein the centre of the kingdom, and to support his disciples with[an allowance of] 10,000 chung, so that all the great officers and people may have[such an example] to reverence and imitate. Hadyou not better tell him this for me?”

[4] Theofficer She conveyed this message by means of the discipleCh‘in, who reported his words to Mencius.

[5] Mencius said,“Yes; but how should the officer She know that the thing maynot be? Supposing that I wanted to be rich, having declined 100,000 chung, would my accepting 10,000 be the conduct ofone desiring riches?

[6] “Ke-sun said,‘A strange man was Tsze-shuh E! Suppose that he himself was ahigh minister, if [his prince would] no longeremploy him, he had to retire; but he would again [tryto] get one of his younger relatives to be high minister. Whoindeed is there of men that does not wish to be rich and noble, but heonly, among the rich and noble, sought to monopolize the conspicuousmound.’

[7] “In oldtime the market-dealers exchanged the articles which they had for otherswhich they had not, and simply had certain officers to keep them inorder. There was a mean fellow, who made it a point to look out for aconspicuous mound, and get up upon it. Thence he looked right and leftto catch in his net the whole gain of the market. People all thought hisconduct mean, and therefore they proceeded to lay a tax upon his wares.The taxing of traders took its rise from this meanfellow.”

XI. [1] Mencius, having left[the capital of] T‘se, was passing thenight in Chow.

[2] A person who wishedfor the king to detain him [cameand] sat down [to speak with him].[Mencius] gave him no answer, but leant upon hisstool and slept.

[3] The stranger was displeased, andsaid, “I have fasted for two days before I would venture tospeak with you, and [now], Master, you sleep anddo not listen to me. Allow me to request that I may not again presume tosee you.” [Mencius] said,“Sit down, and I will explain the matter clearly to you.Formerly, if duke Muh of Loo had not had persons[continually] by the side of Tsze-sze, he couldnot have kept Tsze-sze [in his State]; and ifSëeh Lëw and Shin Ts‘ëanghad not had persons by the side of duke Muh, they would not have beenable to feel at rest [in remaining in Loo].

[4] “You, Sir,are concerned and plan about an old man like me, but I have not beentreated as Tsze-sze was. Is it you, Sir, who cut me? Or is it I who cutyou?”

XII. [1] Mencius having left Ts‘e, Yin Sze spake about him to others,saying, “If he did not know that the king could not be made aT‘ang or a Woo, that showed his want of intelligence. If heknew that he could not be made such, and yet came [toTs‘e] notwithstanding, that he was seeking for favours. He came a thousand le to wait upon the king. Because he did not findin him the ruler he wished, he took his leave. Three nights he stayed,and then passed from Chow;—how dilatory and lingering[was his departure]! I am dissatisfied on accountof this.”

[3] Thedisciple Kaou informed [Mencius] of theseremarks.

4. [Mencius] said, “How should Yin Szeknow me? When I came a thousand le to see the king,it was what I desired to do. When I went away, not finding in him theruler that I wished, was that what I desired to do? I felt myselfconstrained to do it.

5. “When I stayedthree nights before I passed from Chow, in my own mind I stillconsidered my departure speedy. I was hoping that the king might change.If the king had changed, he would certainly have recalled me.

6. “When I passed fromChow, and the king had not sent after me, then, and only then, was mymind resolutely bent on returning [to Tsow]. Butnotwithstanding that, was I giving the king up? He is after all one whomay be made to do what is good. If the king were to use me, would it befor the happiness of the people of Ts‘e only? It would be forthe happiness of all under heaven. Would the king but change! I am dailyhoping for this.

[7] “Am I likeone of your little-minded people? They will remonstrate with theirruler, and when their remonstrance is not accepted, they get angry, andwith their passion displayed in their countenance, they take theirleave, and travel with all their strength for a whole day before theywill stop for the night.”

8. When Yin Sze heard this[explanation], he said, “I am indeed asmall man.”

XIII. [1] When Mencius left Ts‘e,Ch‘ung Yu questioned him on theway, saying, “Master, you look like one who carries an air ofdissatisfaction in his countenance. [But] formerlyI heard you say that the superior man does not murmur against Heaven,nor cherish a grudge against men.”

2. [Mencius] said, “That was one time, andthis is another.

[3] “It is a rule that atrue sovereign should arise in the course of five hundred years, andthat during that time there should be men illustrious in theirgeneration.

[4] “From thecommencement of the Chow dynasty till now, more than seven hundred yearshave elapsed. Judging numerically, the date is passed. Considering thematter from the [character of the present] time,we might expect [a true king to arise].

[5] “ButHeaven does not yet wish that tranquillity and good order should prevailall under the sky. If it wished this, who is there besides me to bringit about? How should I be otherwise than dissatisfied?”

XIV. [1] When Mencius leftTs‘e, he dwelt in Hew.[There] Kung-sun Ch‘ow asked him,“Was it the way of the ancients to hold office withoutreceiving salary?”

[2] [Mencius] said,“No. When I first saw the king in Ts‘ung, it wasmy intention, on retiring from the interview, to go away. Because I didnot wish to change this intention, I would not receive [anysalary].

[3] “Immediately after, orders were issued for [thecollection of] troops, when it would have been improper forme to beg [permission to leave].[But] to remain long in Ts‘e was not mypurpose.”

BOOK III. [*]

T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG.PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] When duke Wăn ofT‘ang was heir-son, being on a journey to Ts‘oo hepassed by [the capital of] Sung, and had aninterview with Mencius.

[2] Menciusdiscoursed to him how the nature of man is good, and, in speaking, madelaudatory appeal to Yaou and Shun.

[3] When the heir-sonwas returning from Ts‘oo, he again saw Mencius, when thelatter said to him, “Prince, do you doubt my words? The pathis one, and only one.

[4] “Ch‘ingKan said to duke King of Ts‘e, ‘They were men,[and] I am a man;—why should I stand inawe of them?’ Yeu Yuen said, ‘What kind of man wasShun? What kind of man am I? He who exerts himself will also become suchas he was.’ Kung-ming E said, ‘King Wănis my teacher and model;—how should the duke of Chow deceiveme [by these words]?’

[5] “Now T‘ăng, taking its length with itsbreadth, will amount to about fifty square le. [Though small,] it may still be made a goodkingdom. It is said in the Book of History, ‘If medicine donot distress the patient, it will not cure his sickness.’”

II. [1] When duke Tingof T‘ăng died, the heir-son said to JenYëw, “Formerly, Mencius spoke with me in Sung, andI have never forgotten his words. Now, alas! this great affair[of the death of my father] has happened, and Iwish to send you, Sir, to ask Mencius, and then to proceed to theservices [connected with it].”

[2] JenYëw [accordingly] proceeded to Tsow,and consulted Mencius. Mencius said, “Is not this good? Themourning rites for parents are what men feel constrained to do theirutmost in. The philosopher Tsăng said, ‘Whenparents are alive, they should be served according to [therules of] propriety; whendead, they should be buried, and they should be sacrificed to, accordingto the same:—this may be called filial piety.’ Ihave not learned [for myself] the ceremonies to beobserved by the feudal princes, but nevertheless I have heard thesepoints:—Three years’ mourning, with the wearingthe garment of coarse cloth with its lower edge even, and the eating ofthin congee, have been equally prescribed by the three dynasties, andare binding on all, from the son of Heaven to the commonpeople.”

[3] Jen Yew reported theexecution of his commission, and [the prince]determined that the three years’ mourning should be observed.His uncles and elder cousins, and the body of the officers, did not wishit, and said, “The former rulers of Loo, the State which wehonour, have, none of them, observed this mourning, nor have any of ourown former rulers observed it. For you to change their practice isimproper; and moreover, the History says, ‘In mourning andsacrifice ancestors are to be followed,’ meaning that we havereceived those things from a [proper]source.”

[4] [The princeagain] said to Jen Yew, “Hitherto I have not givenmyself to the pursuit of learning, but have found my pleasure in drivingmy horses and in sword-exercise. Now my uncles and elder cousins and thebody of officers are not satisfied with me. Iam afraid I may not be able to carry out [this]great business; do you, Sir, [again go and] askMencius for me.” Jen Yëw went again to Tsow, andconsulted Mencius, who said, “Yes, but this is not a matterin which he has to look to any one but himself. Confucius said,‘When a ruler died, his successor entrusted theadministration to the prime minister. He sipped the congee, and his facelooked very dark. He went to the [proper] place,and wept. Of all the officers and inferior employés there wasnot one who did not dare not to be sad, when [the princethus] set them the example. What the superior loves, hisinferiors will be found to love still more. The relation betweensuperiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. Thegrass must bend when the wind blows upon it.’ The[whole thing] depends on theheir-son.”

[5] JenYëw returned with this answer to his commission, and theprince said, “Yes; it does indeed depend on me.”For five months he dwelt in the shed, and did not issue an order or acaution. The body of officers and his relatives [said], “He may be pronouncedacquainted [with all the ceremonies].”When the time of interment arrived, they came from all quarters to seeit, with the deep dejection of his countenance, and the mournfulness ofhis wailing and weeping. Those who [had come from otherStates to] condole with him were greatly pleased.

III. [1] Duke Wăn ofT‘ăng asked [Mencius] about[the proper way of] governing a State.

[2] Mencius said, “Thebusiness of the people must not be remissly attended to. It is said inthe Book of Poetry,

- ‘In the daytime collect the grass,

- And at night twist it into ropes.

- Then get up quickly on our roofs:—

- We shall have to recommence our sowing.’

[3] “The way of thepeople is this:—Those who have a certain livelihood have afixed heart, and those who have not a certain livelihood have not afixed heart. If they have not a fixed heart, there is nothing which theywill not do in the way of self-abandonment, of moral deflection, ofdepravity, and of wild license. When they have thus been involved incrime, to follow them up and punish them is to entrap the people. Howcan such a thing as entrapping the people be done under the rule of abenevolent man?

[4] “Therefore a ruler endowedwith talents and virtue will be gravely complaisant and economical,showing a respectful politeness to his ministers, and taking from thepeople only according to definite regulations.

[5] “Yang Hoo said,‘He who seeks to be rich will not be benevolent; and he whoseeks to be benevolent will not be rich.’

[6] “[Under] the sovereigns ofHëa, [each farmer received] fiftyacres, and contributed [a certain tax].[Under] those of Yin, [each farmerreceived] seventy acres, and [eightfamilies] helped [to cultivate the publicacres]. Under those of Chow, [each farmerreceived] a hundred acres, and [theproduce] was allotted in shares. In reality what was paid inall these was a tithe. The share system means division; the aid systemmeans mutual dependence.

[7] “Lung-tsze said,‘For regulating the land there is no better system than thatof mutual aid, and none worse than that ofcontributing a certain tax. According to the tax system it was fixed bytaking the average of several years. In good years, when the grain liesabout in abundance, much might be taken without its being felt to beoppressive, and the actual exaction is small. In bad years, when[the produce] is not sufficient to[repay] the manuring of the fields, this systemstill requires the taking of the full amount. When he who should be theparent of the people causes the people to wear looks of distress, and,after the whole year’s toil, yet not to be able to nourishtheir parents, and moreover to set about borrowing to increase[their means of paying the tax], till their oldpeople and children are found lying in the ditches andwater-channels:—where [in such a case]is his parental relation to the people?’

[8] “As to the system ofhereditary salaries, that is already observed inT‘ăng.

[9] “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘May it rain first on our public fields,

- And then come to our private!’

It is only in the system of mutual aid, that there are thepublic fields, and from this passage we perceive that even in the Chowdynasty this system has been recognized.

[10] “Establish ts‘eang, seu, heoh, and heaou, —[all these educationalinstitutions]—for the instruction [ofthe people]. The name ts‘eang indicates nourishing; heaou indicates teaching; and seu indicates archery. By the Hea dynasty thename heaou was used; by the Yin dynasty that of seu; and by the Chow dynasty that of ts‘eang. As to the heoh, they belonged equally to the three dynasties,[and by that name]. The object of them all is toillustrate the [duties of the] human relations.When these are [thus] illustrated by superiors,mutual affection will prevail among the smaller people below.

[11] “Should a[true] king arise, he will certainly come and takean example [from you], and thus you will be theteacher of the [true] king.

12. “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘Although Chow was an old State,

- The [favouring] appointment lighted on itrecently.’

That is said with reference to king Wăn. Do youpractise those things with vigour, and you will also give a new historyto your State.”

[13] [The duke afterwards] sent Peih Chen to ask aboutthe nine-squares system of dividing the land. Mencius said to him,“Since your ruler, wishing to put in practice a benevolentgovernment, has made choice of you, and put you into this employment,you must use all your efforts. Benevolent government must commonce withthe definition of the boundaries. If the boundaries be not definedcorrectly, the division of the land into squares will not be equal, andthe produce [available for] salaries will not beevenly distributed. On this account, oppressive rulers and impureministers are sure to neglect the defining ofthe boundaries. When the boundaries have been defined correctly, thedivision of the fields and the regulation of the salaries may bedetermined [by you] sitting [at yourease].

[14] “Although theterritory of T‘ăng be narrow and small, there mustbe in it, I apprehend, men of a superior grade, and there must be in itcountry-men. If there were not men of a superior grade, there would benone to rule the country-men; if there were not country-men, there wouldbe none to support the men of superior grade.

[15] “I would ask you,in the [purely] country districts, to observe thenine-squares division, having one square cultivated on the system ofmutual aid; and in the central parts of the State, to levy a tenth, tobe paid by the cultivators themselves.

[16] “From the highestofficers downwards, each one must have [his] holyfield, consisting of fifty acres.

[17] “Let the supernumerary maleshave [their] twenty-five acres.

[18] “On occasions of death, or of removing from one dwelling toanother, there will be no quitting the district. In the fields of adistrict, those who belong to the same nine-squares render all friendlyoffices to one another in their going out and coming in, aid one anotherin keeping watch and ward, and sustain one another in sickness. Thus thepeople will be led to live in affection and harmony.

[19] “A square le covers nine squares of land, which nine squarescontain nine hundred acres. The central square contains the publicfields; and eight families, each having its own hundred acres, cultivatethem together. And it is not till the public work is finished that theypresume to attend to their private fields. [Thisis] the way by which the country-men are distinguished[from those of a superior grade].

20. “These are thegreat outlines [of the system]. Happily to modifyand adapt them depends on your ruler and you.”

IV. [1] There came from Ts‘oo toT‘ăng one Heu Hing, who gave out that he actedaccording to the words of Shin-nung. Coming right to his gate, headdressed duke Wăn, saying,“A man of a distant region, I have heard that you, O ruler,are practising a benevolent government, and I wish to receive a site fora house, and to become one of your people.” DukeWăn gave him a dwelling-place. His disciples, amounting toseveral tens, all wore clothes of hair-cloth, and made sandals of hempand wove mats for a living.

[2] Ch‘inSëang, a disciple of Ch‘in Lëang, withhis younger brother Sin, with their plough-handles and shares on theirbacks, came [at the same time] from Sung toT‘ăng, saying, “We have heard that you,O ruler, are putting into practice the government of the[ancient] sages, [showingthat] you are likewise a sage: we wish to be the subjects ofa sage.”

[3] When Ch‘in Seang sawHeu Hing, he was very much pleased with him, and, abandoning all whichhe had learned, he set about learning from him. Having an interview withMencius, he repeated to him the words of Heu Hing to thiseffect:—“The ruler of T‘ăngis indeed a worthy prince, but nevertheless he has not yet heard the[real] ways [of antiquity].Wise and able rulers should cultivate the ground equally and along withtheir people, and eat [the fruit of their ownlabour]. They should prepare their morning and evening meals[themselves], and [at the sametime] carry on the business of government. But now[the ruler of] T‘ăng has hisgranaries, treasuries, and arsenals, which is a distressing of thepeople to support himself;—how can he be deemed a[real] ruler of talents andvirtue?”

[4] Mencius said, “Mr Heu, I suppose, sows grain and eats[the produce].”“Yes,” was the reply. “I suppose he[also] weaves cloth, and wears his ownmanufacture.” “No, he wears clothes ofhair-cloth.” “Does he wear a cap?”“He wears a cap.” “What kind ofcap?” “A plain cap.” “Is itwoven by himself?” “No; he gets it in exchange forgrain.” “Why does he not weave ithimself?” “That would be injurious to hishusbandry.” “Does he cook his food with boilersand earthenware pans, and plough with an iron share?”“Yes.” “Does he make themhimself?” “No; he gets them in exchange forgrain.”

5. [Mencius thensaid], “The getting such articles in exchange forgrain is not oppressive to the potter and founder; and are the potterand founder oppressive to the husbandman, when they give him theirvarious articles in exchange for grain? Moreover, why does Heu not actthe potter and founder, and supply himself with the articles which heuses solely from his own establishment? Why does he go confusedlydealing and exchanging with the handicraftsmen? Why is he so indifferentto the trouble that he takes?” [Ch‘inSeang replied], “The business of thehandicraftsmen can by no means be carried on along with that ofhusbandry.”

[6] [Mencius resumed], “Then is it thegovernment of all under heaven which alone can be carried on along withthe business of husbandry? Great men have their proper business, andlittle men have theirs. Moreover, in the case of any single individual,[whatever articles he can require are] ready tohis hand, being produced by the various handicraftsmen:—if hemust first make them himself for his own use, this would keep all underheaven running about on the roads. Hence there is the saying,‘Some labour with their minds, and some labour with theirstrength. Those who labour with their minds govern others, and those wholabour with their strength are governed by others. Those who aregoverned by others support them, and those who govern others are supported by them.’ This is a thingof right universally recognized.

[7] “In the time of Yaou, when theworld had not yet been perfectly reduced to order, the vast waters,flowing out of their channels, made a universal inundation. Vegetationwas luxuriant, and birds and beasts swarmed. The five kinds of graincould not be grown, and the birds and beasts pressed upon men. The pathsmarked by the feet of beasts and prints of birds crossed one anotherthroughout the Middle States. To Yaou especially this caused anxioussorrow. He called Shun to office, and measures to regulate the disorderwere set forth. Shun committed to Yih the direction of the fire to beemployed, and he set fire to, and consumed, [the forests andvegetation on] the mountains and [in]the marshes, so that the birds and beasts fled away and hid themselves.Yu separated the nine [streams of the] Ho, clearedthe courses of the Tse and the T‘ah, and led them to the sea.He opened a vent for the Joo and the Han, removed the obstructions inthe channels of the Hwae and the Sze, and led them to theKëang. When this was done, it became possible for[the people of] the Middle States to[cultivate the ground, and] get food[for themselves]. During that time, Yu was eightyears away from his house, thrice passing by his door without enteringit. Although he had wished to cultivate the ground, could he have doneit?

[8] “How-tseih taught the people to sow and reap, cultivating thefive kinds of grain; and when these were brought to maturity, the peopleall enjoyed a comfortable subsistence. [But] tomen there belongs the way [in which they shouldgo]; and if they are well fed, warmly clad, and comfortablylodged, without being taught [at the same time],they become almost like the beasts. This also was a subject of anxioussolicitude to the sage [Shun]; and he appointedSëeh to be minister of Instruction, and to teach therelations of humanity!—how, between father and son, thereshould be affection; between ruler and subject, righteousness; betweenhusband and wife, attention to their separate functions; between old andyoung, a proper distinction; and between friends, fidelity. Fang-heunsaid, ‘Encourage them; lead them on; rectify them; straightenthem; help them; give them wings; causing them to become masters oftheir own [nature] for themselves.’When the sages were exercising their solicitude for the people in thisway, had they leisure to cultivate the ground?

[9] “WhatYaou felt as peculiarly giving him anxiety was the not getting Shun; andwhat Shun felt as peculiarly giving him anxiety was the not getting Yuand Kaou Yaou. But he whose anxiety is about his hundredacres’ not being properly cultivated is a[mere] husbandman.

[10] “The imparting bya man to others of his wealth is called ‘akindness.’ The teaching others what is good is called‘an exercise of fidelity.’ The finding a man whoshall benefit all under heaven is called‘benevolence.’ Hence to give the kingdom toanother man would be easy; to find a man who shall benefit it isdifficult.

[11] “Confucius said,‘Great was Yaou as a ruler! Only Heaven is great, and onlyYaou corresponded to it. How vast [was hisvirtue]! The people could find no name for it. Princelyindeed was Shun! How majestic was he, possessing all under heaven, andyet seeming as if it were nothing to him!’ In their governingall under heaven, had Yaou and Shun no subjects with which they occupiedtheir minds? But they did not occupy them with their own cultivation ofthe ground.

[12] “I have heard of men using [the ways ofour] great land to change barbarians, but I have not yetheard of any being changed by barbarians. Ch‘inLëang was a native of Ts‘oo. Pleased with thedoctrines of the dukes of Chow and Chung-ne, he came north to the MiddleStates and learned them. Among the learners of the northern regions,there were perhaps none who excelled him;—he was what youcall a scholar of high and distinguished qualities. You and your youngerbrother followed him for several tens of years, but on his death youforthwith turned the back on him.

[13] “Formerly, when Confucius died, after three years had elapsedthe disciples put their baggage in order, intending to return to their homes. Having entered to take leave ofTsze-kung, they looked towards one another and wailed, till they alllost their voices. After this they returned to their homes, butTsze-kung built another house for himself on the altar-ground, where helived alone for [other] three years, after whichhe returned home. Subsequently, Tsze-hëa, Tsze-chang, andTsze-yëw, thinking that Yëw Joh resembled thesage, wished to pay to him the same observances which they had paid toConfucius, and [tried to] forceTsăng-tsze [to join with them]. Hesaid, [however], ‘The thing must not bedone. What has been washed in the waters of the Keang and Han, andbleached in the autumn sun:—how glistening it is! Nothing canbe added to it.’

14. “Now here is thisshrike-tongued barbarian of the south, whose doctrines are not those ofthe ancient kings. You turn your back on your[former] master, and learn ofhim;—different you are indeed from Tsăng-tsze.

[15] “I have heardof [birds] leaving the dark valleys, and removingto lofty trees, but I have not heard of their descending from loftytrees, and entering the dark valleys.

[16] “In the Praise-odes of Loo it is said,

- ‘He smote the tribes of the west and the north;

- He punished King and Shoo.’

Thus the duke of Chow then smote those[tribes], and you are become a disciple of[one of] them;—the change which youhave made is indeed not good.”

[17] [Ch‘inSëang said], “If Heu’sdoctrines were followed, there would not be two prices in the market,nor any deceit in the State. Though a lad of five cubits were sent tothe market, nobody would impose on him. Linens and silks of the samelength would be of the same price. So wouldit be with [bundles of] hemp and silk, being ofthe same weight; with the different kinds of grain, being the same inquantity; and with shoes which were of the same size.”

18. [Mencius] replied, “It is in the natureof things to be of unequal quality. Some are twice, some five times,some ten times, some a hundred times, some a thousand times, some tenthousand times as valuable as others. If you reduce them all to the samestandard, that would throw all under heaven into confusion. If largeshoes and small shoes were of the same price, would people make them? Ifpeople were to follow the doctrines of Heu, they would[only] lead on one another to practisedeceit;—how can they avail for the government of aState?”

[V] [1] TheMihist E Che sought, through Seu Peih, to see Mencius. Mencius said,“I indeed wished to see him; but at present I am stillunwell. When I am better, I will myself go and see him; he need not come[to me].”

[2] Next day,[E Che] again sought to see Mencius, who said,“Yes, to-day I can see him. But if I do not correct [his errors], the[true] principles will not clearly appear; let mefirst correct him. I have heard that Mr E is a Mihist. Now Mih thinksthat in the regulation of the rites of mourning a spare simplicityshould be the rule. E thinks [with Mih’sdoctrines] to change [the customs of]all under heaven; but how does he [himself] regardthem as if they were wrong, and not honour them? Thus when E buried hisparents in a sumptuous manner, he was doing them service in a way which[his doctrines] discountenanced.”

[3] The disciple Seuinformed Mr E of these remarks. E said, “[Evenaccording to] the principles of the learned, the ancients,[though sages, dealt with the people] as if theywere loving and cherishing their children. What does this expressionmean? To me it sounds that we are to love all without difference ofdegree, the manifestation of it [simply] beginningwith our parents.” Seu reported this reply to Mencius, whosaid, “Does Mr E really think that a man’saffection for the child of his elder brother is[merely] like his affection for the child of hisneighbour? What is to be taken hold of in that[expression] is simplythis:—[that the people’s offences areno more than] the guiltlessness of an infant, which,crawling, is about to fall into a well. Moreover, Heaven gives birth tocreatures in such a way that they have [only] oneroot, while Mr E makes them to have two roots;—this is thecause [of his error].

[4] “Indeed, in the most ancient times there were some who didnot inter their parents, but [simply] took theirdead bodies up and threw them into a ditch. Afterwards, when passing bythem, [they saw] foxes and wild-cats devouringthem, and flies and gnats gnawing at them. The perspiration started outupon their foreheads, and they looked away, because they could not bearthe sight. It was not because of [what] otherpeople [might say] that this perspiration flowed.The emotions of their hearts affected their faces and eyes, and so theywent home, and returned with baskets and spades, and covered the[bodies]. If this covering them was indeed right,then filial sons and virtuous men must be guided by a certain principlein the burial of their parents.”

[5] Seuinformed Mr E of what Mencius had said. Mr E seemed lost in thought, andafter a little said, “He has instructed me.”

T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG.PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Ch‘inTae said [to Mencius], “In not[going to] see any of the princes, you seem to meto be standing out on a small point. If now you were once to wait uponthem, the result might be so great that you would make one of them king,or, if smaller, you might yet make one of them leader of the[other] princes. And moreover, the History says,‘By bending only to the extent of one cubit, you make eightcubits straight.’ It appears to me like a thing which mightbe done.”

[2] Mencius said, “Formerly, duke King of Ts‘e,[once] when he was hunting, called the forester tohim by a flag. [The forester] would not come, and[the duke] was going to kill him. [Withreference to this incident], Confucius said, ‘Theresolute officer does not forget [that his end may be] in a ditch or stream; thebrave officer does not forget that he may lose his head.’What was it [in the forester] that Confucius thusapproved? He approved his not going [to the duke],when summoned by an article that was not appropriate to him. If one go[to see the princes] without waiting to be called,what can be thought of him?

[3] “Moreover, [that sentence,]‘By bending to the extent of one cubit you make eight cubitsstraight,’ is spoken with reference to the gain[that may be got]. If gain be the rule, then wemay seek it, I suppose, by bending to the extent of eight cubits to makeone cubit straight.

[4] “Formerly,the minister Chaou Keen made Wăng Lëang act ascharioteer to his favourite He, and in the course of a whole day theydid not get a single bird. The favourite He reported this result,saying, ‘He is the poorest charioteer in theworld.’ Some one informed Wang Lëang of this, whosaid, ‘I beg to try again.’ By dint of pressing,he got this accorded to him, and in one morning they got ten birds. Thefavourite He [again] reported the result, saying,‘He is the best charioteer in the world.’ Theminister Keen said, ‘I will make him be the driver of yourcarriage;’ but when he informed Wang Lëang ofthis, he refused, saying, ‘I [drove]for him, strictly observing the rules for driving, and in the whole dayhe did not get one bird. I [drove] for him so asdeceitfully to intercept [the birds], and in onemorning he got ten. The Book of Poetry says,

- “No error in driving was committed,

- And the arrows went forth like downrightblows.”

I am not accustomed to drive for a mean man. I beg to declinethe office.’

5. “[Thusthis] charioteer even was ashamed to bend improperly to thewill of [such] an archer. Though by bending to itthey would have caught birds and animals enow to form a hill, he wouldnot do it. If I were to bend my principles and follow those[princes], of what course would my conduct be?Moreover you are wrong. Never has a man who has bent himself been ableto make others straight.”

II. [1] King Ch‘unsaid [to Mencius], “Are not Kung-sunYen and Chang E really great men? Let them once be angry, and all theprinces are afraid; let them live quietly, and the flames of trouble areextinguished throughout the kingdom.”

[2] Mencius said,“How can they be regarded as great men? Have you not read theRitual [usages];—‘At thecapping of a young man, his father admonishes him. At the marrying awayof a daughter, her mother admonishes her, accompanying her to the door,and cautioning her in these words, “You are going to yourhome. You must be respectful; you must be cautious. Do not disobey yourhusband.” ’ [Thus,] to lookupon compliance as their correct course is the rule for concubines andwives.

[3] “Todwell in the wide house of the world; to stand in the correct positionof the world; and to walk in the great path of the world; when heobtains his desire [for office], to practise his principles for the good of the people; andwhen that desire is disappointed, to practise them alone; to be abovethe power of riches and honours to make dissipated, of poverty and meancondition to make swerve [from principle], and ofpower and force to make bend:—these characteristicsconstitute the great man.”

III. [1] Chow Sëaou asked [Mencius], saying,“Did superior men of old time take office?”Mencius said, “They did.” The Record says,“When Confucius was three months without [beingemployed by] some ruler, he looked disappointed and unhappy.When he passed over the boundary [of a State], hewas sure to carry with him his proper gift of introduction.”Kung-ming E said, “Among the ancients, when [anofficer] was three months without [being employedby] some ruler, he was condoled with.”

2. [Seaousaid,] “Did not this condoling, on being threemonths unemployed by a ruler, show a too great urgency?”

[3] “The loss of hisplace,” was the reply, “is to an officer like theloss of his State to a prince. It is said in the Book of Rites,‘The prince ploughs [himself], and isafterwards assisted [by others], in order tosupply the milletvessels [for sacrifice]. His wifekeeps silk-worms and unwinds their cocoons, to make the robes[used in sacrificing]. If the victims be notperfect, the millet in the vessels not pure,and the robes not complete, he does not presume to sacrifice. And thescholar, who, [out of office], has no[holy] field, also does not sacrifice. The victimsfor slaughter, the vessels, and the robes, not being all complete, hedoes not presume to sacrifice, and then he does not presume to feel atease and happy.’ Is there not in all this sufficient groundfor condolence?”

4. [Sëaouagain asked], “What was the meaning of[Confucius’] always carrying his propergift of introduction with him, when he passed over the boundary[of a State]?”

5. “Anofficer’s being in office,” was the reply,“is like the ploughing of a husbandman. Does a husbandmanpart with his plough because he goes from one State toanother?”

[6] [Sëaou] pursued, “Thekingdom of Tsin is one, as well as others, of official employments, butI have not heard of any being thus earnest about being in office in it.If there should be this urgency about being in office, why does asuperior man make any difficulty about taking it?”[Mencius] replied, “When a son is born,what is desired for him is that he may have a wife; and when a daughteris born, what is desired for her is that she may have a husband. This isthe feeling of the parents, and is possessed by all men. [Ifthe young people], without waiting for the orders of theparents and the arrangements of the go-betweens, shall bore holes to steal a sight of each other, or getover the wall to be with each other, then their parents and all otherpeople will despise them. The ancients did indeed always desire to be inoffice, but they also hated being so by any but the proper way. To go[to see the princes] by any but the proper way isof a class with [young people’s] boringholes.”

IV. [1] P‘ăng Kăngasked [Mencius], saying, “Is it not anextravagant procedure to go from one prince to another and live uponthem, followed by several tens of carriages and attended by severalhundred men?” Mencius replied, “If there be not aproper ground [for taking it], a single bamboo-cupof rice should not be received from a man; if there be such a ground forit, Shun’s receiving from Yaou all under heaven is not to beconsidered excessive? Do you think it was excessive?”

[2] [Kăng] said, “No.[But] for a scholar performing no service toreceive his support notwithstanding is improper.”

3. [Mencius] answered, “If you do not havean intercommunication of the productions of labour and an interchange of[men’s] services, so that[one from his] overplus may supply the deficiencyof another, then husbandmen will have a superfluity of grain, and womena superfluity of cloth. If you have such an interchange, thencabinet-makers, builders, wheel-wrights, and carriage-builders may allget their food from you. Here is a man, who, at home, is filial, and,abroad, respectful to his elders; and who watches over the principles of the ancient kings to be ready for[the use of] future learners:—and yethe will not be able to get his support from you. How is it that you givehonour to the cabinet-makers, and the others I have mentioned, andslight him who practises benevolence and righteousness.”

4. [P‘ăng Kăng]said, “The aim of the cabinet-maker, and others of his class,is [by their trades] to seek for aliving;—is it also the aim of the superior man, in hispractice of the principles [you mention], to seekfor a living?” “What have you to do with hisaim?” was the reply. “He renders services to you.He deserves to be supported, and you support him. And [let meask],—do you remunerate a man for his intention?or do you remunerate him for his service?” [Tothis Kăng] replied, “I remunerate himfor his intention.”

5. [Mencius] said, “There is a man herewho breaks your tiles, and draws [unsightly]ornaments on your walls, his purpose being thereby to seek for hisliving; but will you indeed remunerate him?”“No,” was the reply; and [Menciusthen] concluded, “Then, it is not for his purposethat you remunerate a man, but for the work done.”

[V] [1] WanChang said [to Mencius], “Sung is asmall State; but [its ruler] is now setting aboutto practise the [true] royal government, andTs‘e and Ts‘oo hate and attackhim;—what is to be done in the case?”

[2] Mencius said, “WhenT‘ang dwelt in Poh, he adjoined to[the State of] Koh, the earl of which was livingin a dissolute state, and neglecting [his proper]sacrifices. T‘ang sent messengers to ask why he did notsacrifice, and when he said that he had no means of supplying the[necessary] victims, T‘ang caused sheepand oxen to be sent to him. The earl, however, ate them, and stillcontinued not to sacrifice. T‘ang again sent messengers toask him the same question as before, and when he said that he had nomeans of supplying the vessels of millet, T‘ang sent thepeople of Poh to go and till the ground for him, while the old andfeeble carried their food to them. The earl led his people to interceptthose who were thus charged with spirits, cooked rice, millet and paddy,and took their stores from them, killing those who refused to give themup. There was a boy with millet and flesh for the labourers, who wasthus killed and robbed. What is said in the Book of History,‘The earl of Koh behaved as an enemy to theprovision-carriers,’ has reference to this.

[3] “Because of his murder of this boy,[T‘ang] proceeded to punish him. Allwithin the four seas said, ‘It is not because he desires theriches of the kingdom, but to avenge the common men andwomen.’

[4] “When T‘ang beganhis work of executing justice, he commenced with Koh; and though hepunished eleven [States], he had not an enemyunder heaven. When he pursued his work in the east, the rude tribes inthe west murmured. So did those in the north, when he pursued it in thesouth. Their cry was, ‘Why does he make us last?’The people’s longing for him was like their longing for rainin a time of great drought. Thefrequenters of the markets stopped not; those engaged in weeding made nochange [in their operations]. While he punishedtheir rulers, he consoled the people. [His progresswas] like the falling of opportune rain, and the people weredelighted. It is said in the Book of History, ‘We have waitedfor our prince. When our prince comes, we shall escape the misery[under which we suffer].’

[5] “There being some whowould not become the subjects [of Chow, king Woo]proceeded to punish them on the east. He gave tranquillity to[their people, both] men and women, who[welcomed him] with baskets full of their dark andyellow silks, [saying,] ‘Fromhenceforth [we shall serve] our king of Chow, andbe made happy by him.’ So they gave in their adherence assubjects to the great State of Chow. The men of station [ofShang] took baskets full of dark and yellow silks, to meetthe men of station [of Chow], and the lowerclasses of the one met those of the other with bamboo-cups of cookedrice and vessels of congee. [Woo] saved the peoplefrom the midst of fire and water, seizing only their oppressors,[and destroying them].

[6] “It is said in‘The Great Declaration:’—‘Mymilitary prowess is displayed, and I enter his territories, and willseize the oppressor. My execution and punishment of him shall bedisplayed, more glorious than the work ofT‘ang.’

[7] “[Sung] is not practising royalgovernment, as you say among other things about it. If it werepractising royal government, all within the four seas would be liftingup their heads, and looking for [its king],wishing to have him for their ruler. Great as Ts‘e andTs‘oo are, what would there be to fear fromthem?”

VI. [1] Mencius said to Tae Puh-shing,“Do you indeed, Sir, wish yourking to be virtuous? Well, I will plainly tell you [how hemay be made so]. Suppose that there is here a great officerof Ts‘oo, who wishes his son to learn the speech ofTs‘e, will he employ a man of Ts‘e as his tutor,or a man of Ts‘oo?” “He will employ aman of Ts‘e to teach him,” was the reply, and[Mencius] went on, “If[but] one man of Ts‘e be teaching him,and there be a multitude of men of Ts‘oo shouting out abouthim, although [his father] beat him every day,wishing him to learn the speech of Ts‘e, it will beimpossible for him to do so. [But] in the sameway, if he were to be taken and placed for several years in the Chwang[street], or the Yoh[quarter], although [hisfather] should beat him every day, wishing him to speak thelanguage of Ts‘oo, it would be impossible for him to doso.

[2] “You saythat Sëeh Keu-chow is a scholar of virtue, and you have gothim placed in attendance on the king. If all that are in attendance onthe king, old and young, high and low, were Sëeh Keu-chows,whom would the king have to do evil with? [But] ifthose that are in attendance on the king, old and young, high and low,are all not Sëeh Keu-chows, whom will the king have to dogood with? What can one Sëeh Keu-chow do alone for the kingof Sung?”

VII. [1] Kung-sun Ch‘ow asked[Mencius], saying, “What is the pointof righteousness in your not going to see theprinces?” Mencius said, “Anciently, if one had notbeen a minister [in the State], he did not go tosee [the ruler].

[2] “Twan Kan-muh leapedover a wall to avoid [the prince]; SeehLëw shut the door and would not admit him. These two,however, [carried their scrupulosity] to excess.When a prince is urgent, it is not improper to see him.

[3] “Yang Ho wished to get Confucius to go to see him, butdisliked [that he should be charged himself with]any want of propriety. [As it was the rule, therefore,that] when a great officer sends a gift to a scholar, if thelatter be not at home to receive it, he must go and make hisacknowledgments at the gate of the other, Yang Ho watched when Confuciuswas out and sent him a steamed pig. Confucius, in his turn, watched whenHo was out, and went to pay his acknowledgments to him. At that timeYang Ho had taken the initiative;—how could[Confucius] avoid going to see him?

[4] “The philosopherTsăng said, ‘Those who shrug up their shouldersand laugh in a flattering way toil harder than the summer[labourer in the] fields.’ Tsze-loosaid, ‘There are those who will talk with people with whomthey have no agreement. If you look at their countenances, they are fullof blushes, and are not such as I [care to]know.’ By looking at the matter in the light of theseremarks, [the spirit] which the superior mannourishes may be known.”

VIII. [1] “Tae Ying-che said[to Mencius], “I am not able at presentand immediately to do with a tithe [only], andabolish [at the same time] the duties charged atthe passes and in the markets. With your leave I will lighten all[the present extraordinary exactions] until nextyear, and then make an end of them. What do you think of such acourse?”

2. Mencius said, “Hereis a man who every day appropriates the fowls of his neighbours thatstray to his premises. Some one says to him, ‘Such is not theway of a good man,’ and he replies, ‘With yourleave I will diminish my appropriations, and will take only one fowl amonth, until next year, when I will make an end of the practicealtogether.’

3. “If you know thatthe thing is unrighteous, then put an end to it with alldespatch;—why wait till next year?”

IX. [1] The discipleKung-too said [to Mencius], “Master,people beyond [our school] all say that you arefond of disputing. I venture to ask why you are so.” Menciusreplied, “How should I be fond of disputing? But I amcompelled to do it.

[2] “A long period has elapsedsince this world [of men] received its being, andthere have been [along its history] now a periodof good order, and now a period of confusion.

3. “In the time ofYaou, the waters, flowing out of their channels, inundated all throughthe States, snakes and dragons occupied the country, and the people hadno place where they could settle themselves. In the low grounds theymade [as it were] nests for themselves, and in thehigh grounds they made caves. It is said in the Book of History,‘The vast waters filled me with dread.’ What arecalled ‘the vast waters’ were those of the[above] great inundation.

[4] “[Shun]employed Yu to reduce the waters to order. He dug open the ground[which impeded their flow], and led them to thesea. He drove away the snakes and dragons, and forced them into thegrassy marshes. [On this] the waters pursued theircourse in their channels,—[the watersof] the Këang, the Hwae, the Ho, and the Han. The[natural] difficulties and obstructions being thusremoved, and the birds and beasts which had injured the people havingdisappeared, men found the plains [available forthem], and occupied them.

[5] “After the death of Yaouand Shun, the principles of [those] sages fellinto decay. Oppressive rulers arose one after another, who pulled downthe houses [of the people] to make ponds andlakes, so that the people could nowhere rest in quiet, and threw fieldsout of cultivation to form gardens and parks, so that the people couldnot get clothes and food. [Afterwards], corruptspeakings and oppressive deeds also became rife; gardens and parks,ponds and lakes, thickets and marshes were numerous; and birds andbeasts made their appearance. By the time of Chow, all under heaven wasagain in a state of great confusion.

[6] “The duke of Chow assisted king Woo, and destroyed Chow. Heattacked Yen, and in three years put its ruler to death. He droveFei-lëen to a corner by the sea, and slew him. The Stateswhich he extinguished amounted to fifty. He drove far away the tigers,leopards, rhinoceroses, and elephants. All under heaven were greatlypleased. It is said in the Book of History, ‘How great andsplendid were the plans of king Wăn! How greatly were theycarried out by the energy of king Woo. They are for the help andguidance of us their descendants,—all in principle correct,and deficient in nothing.’

[7] “[Again] the world fell into decay, andprinciples faded away. Perverse speakings and oppressive deeds againbecame rife. There were instances of ministers who murdered theirrulers, and of sons who murdered their fathers.

8. “Confucius wasafraid and made the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw. Whatthe Ch‘un Ts‘ëw contains are mattersproper to the son of Heaven. On this account Confucius said,‘It is the Ch‘un Ts‘ew which will makemen know me, and it is the Ch‘un Ts‘ëwwhich will make men condemn me.’

[9] “[Once more]sage kings do not arise, and the princes of the States give the reins totheir lusts. Unemployed scholars indulge in unreasonable discussions.The words of Yang Choo and Mih Teih fill the kingdom. [If youlisten to] people’sdiscourses throughout it, [you will find that] ifthey are not the adherents of Yang, they are those of Mih.Yang’s principle is—‘Each one forhimself;’ which leaves no [place for dutyto] the ruler. Mih’s principleis—‘To love all equally;’ which leavesno place for [the peculiar affection due to] afather. But to acknowledge neither ruler nor father is to be in thestate of a beast. Kung-ming E said, ‘In their stalls thereare fat beasts, and in their stables there are fat horses, but theirpeople have the look of hunger, and in the fields there are those whohave died of famine. This is leading on beasts to devourmen.’ If the principles of Yang and Mih are not stopped, andthe principles of Confucius are not set forth, then those perversespeakings will delude the people, and stop up [the pathof] benevolence and righteousness. When benevolence andrighteousness are stopped up, beasts will be led on to devour men, andmen will devour one another.

[10] “I am alarmed by thesethings, and address myself to the defence of the principles of theformer sages. I oppose Yang and Mih, and drive away their licentiousexpressions, so that such perverse speakers may not be able to showthemselves. When [their errors] spring up inmen’s minds, they are hurtful to the conduct of affairs. Whenthey are thus seen in their affairs, they are hurtful to theirgovernment. When a sage shall again arise, he will certainly not change[these] my words.

[11] “Formerly, Yu repressed the vast waters [of theinundation], and all under the sky was reduced to order. Theduke of Chow’s achievements extended to the wild tribes ofthe east and north, and he drove away all ferocious animals, so that thepeople enjoyed repose. Confucius completed the Spring and Autumn, andrebellious ministers and villainous sons were struck with terror.

[12] “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘He smote the tribes of the west and the north;

- He punished King and Shoo;

- And no one dared to resist us.’

These father-deniers and king-deniers would have been smittenby the duke of Chow.

[13] “I also wish torectify men’s hearts, and to put an end to[those] perverse speakings, to oppose theirone-sided actions, and banish away their licentiousexpressions;—and thus carry on the [work ofthe] three sages. Do I do so because I am fond of disputing?I am constrained to do it.

[14] “Whoever can by argument opposeYang and Mih is a disciple of the sages.”

[X] [1] K‘wang Chang said[to Mencius], “Is not MrCh‘in Chung a man of true self-denying purity? He was livingin Woo-ling, and for three days was without food, till he could neitherhear nor see. Over a well there grew a plum tree, a fruit of which hadbeen, more than half of it, eaten by worms. He crawled to it, and triedto eat [some of this fruit], when, afterswallowing three mouthfuls, he recovered his sight andhearing.”

[2] Mencius replied,“Among the scholars of Ts‘e I must regard Chung asthe thumb [among the fingers]. But still, how canhe be regarded as having that self-denying purity? To carry out theprinciples which he holds, one must become an earth-worm, for so onlycan it be done.

[3] “Now an earth-worm eats the dry mould above, and drinks theyellow spring below. Was the house in which Mr Chung lives built by aPih-e? or was it built by a robber like Chih? Was the grain which heeats planted by a Pih-e? or was it planted by a robber like Chih? Theseare things which cannot be known.”

[4] “But,” said [Chang],“what does that matter? He himself weaves sandals of hemp,and his wife twists hempen threads, which they exchange [forother things].”

5. [Mencius] rejoined, “Mr Chung belongsto an ancient and noble family of Ts‘e. His elder brother Taereceived from Kah a revenue of 10,000 chung, but heconsidered his brother’s emolument to be unrighteous, andwould not dwell in the place. Avoiding his brother, and leaving hismother, he went and dwelt in Woo-ling. One day afterwards, he returned[to their house], when it happened that some onesent his brother a present of a live goose. He, knitting his brows,said, ‘What are you going to use that cackling thingfor?’ By-and-by, his mother killed the goose, and gave himsome of it to eat. [Just then] his brother cameinto the house and said, ‘It’s the flesh of thatcackling thing,’ on which he went out, and vomited it.

6. “Thus what hismother gave him he would not eat, but what his wife gives him he eats.He will not dwell in his brother’s house, but he dwells inWoo-ling. How can he in such circumstances complete the style of lifewhich he professes? With such principles as Mr Chung holds,[a man must be] an earth-worm, and then he cancarry them out.”

BOOK IV.

LE LOW. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius said, “Thepower of vision of Le Low, and the skill of hand of Kung-shoo, withoutthe compass and square, could not form squares and circles. The acuteear of the [music]-master Kwang, without thepitch-tubes, could not determine correctly the five notes. Theprinciples of Yaou and Shun, without a benevolent government, could notsecure the tranquil order of the kingdom.

With this Book commences what is commonly called the second or lowerPart of the Works of Mencius; but that division is not recognized inthe critical editions. It is called Le Low from its commencing withthose two characters, and contains twenty-eight chapters which aremost of them shorter than those of the preceding Books.

[2] “There are now[princes] who have benevolent hearts and areputation for benevolence, while yet the people do not receive anybenefits from them, nor will they leave any example to futureages;—all because they do not put into practice the ways ofthe ancient kings.

[3] “Hence we have thesaying, ‘Goodness alone is not sufficient for the exercise ofgovernment; laws alone cannot carry themselves intopractice.’

[4] “It is said inthe Book of Poetry,

- ‘Erring in nothing, forgetful of nothing,

- Observing and following the old statutes.’

Never has any one fallen into error who followed the laws ofthe ancient kings.

[5] “When the sages had used all the power of their eyes, theycalled in to their aid the compass, the square, the level, and the line;and the ability to make things square, round, level, and straight wasinexhaustible. When they had used all the power of their ears, theycalled in the aid of the pitch-tubes; and the ability to determinecorrectly the five notes was inexhaustible. When they had used all thethoughts of their hearts, they called in to their aid a government thatcould not bear [to witness the suffering of] men;and their benevolence overspread all under heaven.

[6] “Hence we have the saying, ‘To raise a thing highwe must begin from [the top of] a mound or a hill;to dig to a [great]depth, we must commence in [the low ground of] astream or a marsh.’ Can he be pronounced wise who, in theexercise of government, does not start from the ways of the ancientkings.

[7] “Therefore only thebenevolent ought to be in high stations. When a man destitute ofbenevolence is in a high station, he thereby disseminates his wickednessamong the multitudes [below him].

[8] “When the ruler hasnot principles by which he examines [hisadministration], and his ministers have no laws by which theykeep themselves [in the discharge of theirduties], then in the court obedience is not paid toprinciple, and in the office obedience is not paid to rule. Superiorsviolate [the laws of] righteousness, and inferiorsviolate the penal laws. It is only by a fortunate chance that a State insuch a case is preserved.

9. “Therefore it issaid, ‘It is not the interior and exterior walls beingincomplete, nor the supply of weapons offensive and defensive not beinglarge, which constitutes the calamity of a State. It is not thenon-extension of the cultivable area, nor the non-accumulation of storesand wealth, which is injurious to a State.’ When superiors donot observe the rules of propriety, and inferiors do not learn[anything better], then seditious people springup, and [that State] will perish in no time.

[10] “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘Heaven is now producing such movements;—

- Do not be so indifferent.’

11. “‘Indifferent,’ that is, careless and dilatory.

12. “And so may[those officers] be deemed who serve their rulerwithout righteousness, who take office and retire from office withoutregard to propriety, and in their words disown the ways of the ancientkings.

[13] “Therefore it issaid, ‘To urge one’s ruler to difficultachievements should be called showing respect for him; to set before himwhat is good and repress his perversities should be called showingreverence for him. [He who does not do these things, but saysto himself], ‘My ruler is incompetent tothis,’ should be said to play the thief withhim.”

II. [1] Mencius said, “The compass and square produce perfect circlesand squares. By the sages the human relations are perfectlyexhibited.

[2] “He who, as a ruler, wouldperfectly discharge the duties of a ruler, and he who, as a minister,would perfectly discharge the duties of a minister, have only toimitate,—the one Yaou, and the other Shun. He who does notserve his ruler as Shun served Yaou does not reverence his ruler, and hewho does not rule the people as Yaou ruled them injures his people.

[3] “Confucius said, ‘There are but two courses, thatof benevolence and its opposite.’

[4] “[A ruler] who carries the oppressionof his people to the highest pitch will himself be slain, and his Statewill perish. If one stop short of the highest pitch, his life will be indanger, and his State will be weakened. He will be styled‘The Dark’ or ‘The Cruel;’and though he may have filial sons and affectionate grandsons, they willnot be able in a hundred generations to change [thedesignation].

[5] “This is whatis intended in the words of the Book of Poetry,

- ‘The beacon of Yin is not far distant;—

- It is in the age of the [last] sovereign ofHëa.’ ”

III. [1] Mencius said,“It was by benevolence that the three dynasties gained thekingdom, and by not being benevolent that they lost it.

2. “It is in the sameway that the decaying and flourishing, the preservation and perishing,of States are determined.

[3] “If the sonof Heaven be not benevolent, he cannot preserve [allwithin] the four seas [from passing fromhim]. If a feudal prince be not benevolent, he cannotpreserve his altars. If a noble or great officer be not benevolent, hecannot preserve his ancestral temple. If a scholar or common man be notbenevolent, he cannot preserve his four limbs.

[4] “Now they hate death and ruin,and yet delight in not being benevolent;—this is like hatingto be drunk, and yet being strong [to drink]spirits.”

IV. 1. Mencius said, “Ifa man love others, and no [responsive] affectionis shown to him, let him turn inwards andexamine his own benevolence; if he [is trying to]rule others, and his government is unsuccessful, let him turn inwardsand examine his own wisdom. If he treats others politely and they do notreturn his politeness, let him turn inwards and examine his own[feeling of] respect.

2. “If we do not bywhat we do realize [what we desire], we shouldturn inwards, and examine ourselves in every point. When a man ishimself correct, all under heaven will turn to him [withrecognition and submission].

3. “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘Always strive to accord with the will [ofHeaven];

- So shall you be seeking for much happiness.’”

[V] 1. Mencius said,“People have this common saying,—‘Thekingdom, the State, the clan.’ The root of the kingdom is inthe State; the root of the State is in the clan; the root of the clan isin the person.

VI. Mencius said,“The administration of government is not difficult; it liesin not offending against the great Houses. He whom the great Housesaffect will be affected by the whole State; and he whom a whole Stateaffects will be affected by all under heaven. When this is the case, [such anone’s] virtue and teachings will spread over[all within] the four seas like the rush ofwater.”

VII. [1] Mencius said,“When right government prevails throughout the kingdom,[princes of] little virtue are submissive to thoseof great, and [those of] little worth to[those of] great. When bad government prevails,the small are submissive to the large, and the weak to the strong. Boththese cases are [the law of] Heaven. They whoaccord with Heaven are preserved; they who rebel against Heavenperish.

[2] “Duke King ofTs‘e said, ‘Not to be able to command [others], and furtherto refuse to receive their commands, is to cut one’s-self offfrom all intercourse with them.’ His tears flowed forth, andhe gave his daughter in marriage to [the princeof] Woo.

[3] “Now the small States take for their models the large States,but are ashamed to receive their commands;—this is likescholars being ashamed to receive the commands of their master.

[4] “For [a prince] who is ashamed of this,the best plan is to make king Wăn his model. Let one takeking Wăn as his model and in five years, if his State belarge, or in seven years, if it be small, he will be sure to give law toall under heaven.

5. “It is said in theBook of Poetry,

- ‘The descendants of [the sovereignsof] Shang

- Were more in number than a hundred thousand;

- But when God gave the command,

- They became subject to Chow.

- ‘They became subject to Chow.

- The appointment of Heaven is not constant.

- The officers of Yin, admirable and alert,

- Assist at the libations in our capital.’

Confucius said, ‘As [againstso] benevolent [a ruler, themultitudes] could not be deemed multitudes.’ Ifthe ruler of a State love benevolence, he will have no opponent underheaven.

[6] “Now-a-days, they wish tohave no opponent under heaven, but [they do] not[seek to attain this] by beingbenevolent;—this is like trying to hold a heated substance,without having dipped it in water. It is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘Who can hold anything hot?

- Must he not dip it [first] inwater?’ ”

VIII. 1. Mencius said,“How is it possible to speak with[princes] who are not benevolent? Their perilsthey count safety, their calamities they count profitable, and theydelight in the things by which they are going to ruin. If it werepossible to talk with them who [so] violatebenevolence, how should we have such ruin of States and destruction offamilies?

[2] “There was a boysinging,

- ‘When the water of the Ts‘ang-lang isclear,

- It does to wash the strings of my cap;

- When the water of the Ts‘ang-lang is muddy,

- It does to wash my feet.’

[3] “Confucius said, ‘Hear what he says, mychildren:—when clear, to wash the cap strings; when muddy, towash the feet.’ [This differentapplication] is brought [by the water]on itself.

4. “A man must[first] despise himself, and then others willdespise him. A family must [first] overthrowitself, and then others will overthrow it. A State must[first] smite itself, and then others will smiteit.

[5] “This is illustrated bythe passage in the T‘ae-këah,‘Calamities sent by Heaven may be avoided; but when we bringon the calamities ourselves, it is not possible to live.’”

IX. [1] Mencius said,“Këeh and Chow’s losing the kingdomarose from their losing the people; and to lose the people means to losetheir hearts. There is a way to get the kingdom;—get thepeople, and the kingdom is got. There is a way to get thepeople;—get their hearts, and the people are got. There is away to get their hearts;—it is simply to collect for themwhat they desire, and not to lay on them what they dislike.

2. “The people turnto a benevolent [rule] as water flows downwards,and as wild beasts run to the wilds.

3. “Accordingly[as] the otter aids the deep waters, driving thefish to them, and [as] the hawk aids the thickets,driving the little birds to them, [so] didKëeh and Chow aid T‘ang and Woo, driving thepeople to them.

4. “If among thepresent rulers throughout the kingdom there were one who lovedbenevolence, all the [other] princes would aid himby driving the people to him. Although he wished not to exercise theroyal sway, he could not avoid doing so.

[5] “The case of[one of the] present[princes] wishing to attain to the royal sway islike the having to seek for mugwort three years old to cure a sevenyears’ illness. If it have not been kept in store, the wholelife may pass without getting it. If [the princes]do not set their minds on a benevolent[government], all their days will be in sorrow anddisgrace, till they are involved in death and ruin.

[6] “This is illustrated by what is said in the Book ofPoetry,

- ‘How can you [by your method] bringa good state of affairs about?

- You [and your] advisers will sink together inruin.’ ”

[X] 1. Mencius said,“With those who do violence to themselves it is impossible tospeak. With those who throw themselves away it is impossible to doanything. To disown in his conversation propriety and righteousness iswhat we mean by saying of a man that he does violence to himself; that[he says], ‘I am not able to dwell inbenevolence and pursue the path of righteousness’ is what wemean by saying of a man that he throws himself away.

2. “Benevolence isthe tranquil habitation of man, and righteousness is his straightpath.

3. “Alas for thosewho leave the tranquil dwelling empty and do not reside in it, and whoneglect the straight path and do not pursue it!”

XI. Mencius said,“The path [of duty] is in what is near,and [men] seek for it in what is remote. The work[of duty] is in what is easy, and[men] seek for it in what is difficult. If eachman would love his parents, and show the due respect to his elders,all-under-heaven good order would prevail.”

XII. 1. When those occupyinginferior situations do not obtain the confidence of their superior, theycannot succeed in governing the people. There is a way to obtain theconfidence of the superior;—if one is not trusted by hisfriends, he will not obtain the confidence of his superior. There is away to being trusted by one’s friends;—if one donot serve his parents so as to make them pleased, he will not be trustedby his friends. There is a way to make one’s parentspleased;—if one on turning his thoughts inwards finds a wantof sincerity, he will not give pleasure to his parents. There is a wayto the attainment of sincerity in one’s-self;—if aman do not understand what is good, he will not attain to sincerity inhimself.

2. “Thereforesincerity is the way of Heaven; and to think [how]to be sincere is the way of man.”

3. “Never was thereone possessed of complete sincerity who did not move[others]. Never was there one without sinceritywho yet was able to move others.”

XIII. [1] Mencius said, “Pih-e, that hemight avoid Chow, was dwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When heheard of the rise of king Wăn, he roused himself and said,‘Why should I not attach myself to him? I have heard that thechief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.’T‘ae-kung, that he might avoid Chow, was dwelling on the westcoast of the eastern sea. When he heard ofthe rise of king Wăn, he roused himself and said,‘Why should I not attach myself to him? I have heard that thechief of the West knows well how to nourish the old.’

[2] “These twoold men were the greatest old men in the kingdom. When they attachedthemselves to [king Wăn] it was[like] all the fathers in the kingdom taking hisside. When the fathers of the kingdom joined him, to whom could the sonsgo?

[3] “Were any of the princes to practise the government of kingWăn, within seven years he would be sure to be giving law toall under heaven.”

XIV. [1] Mencius said,“K‘ëw acted as chief officer to theHead of the Ke family, whose [evil] ways he wasunable to change, while he exacted from thepeople double the grain which they had formerly paid. Confucius said,‘He is no disciple of mine. Little children, beat the drumand assail him.’

[2] “Looking at the subjectfrom this case, [we perceive that] when a rulerwho was not practising benevolent government, all [hisministers] who enriched him were disowned byConfucius;—how much more [would he havedisowned] those who are vehement to fight [fortheir ruler]! Some contention about territory is the groundon which they fight, and they slaughter men till the fields are filledwith them; or they fight for the possession of some fortified city, andslaughter men till the walls are covered with them. This is what iscalled ‘leading land on to devour human flesh.’Death is not enough for such a crime.

[3] “Therefore those who are skilful to fight should suffer thehighest punishment. Next to them [should bepunished] those who unite the princes in leagues; and next tothem, those who take in grassy wastes, and impose the cultivation of theground [upon the people].”

XV. 1. Mencius said, “Ofall the parts of a man’s [body] thereis none more excellent than the pupil of the eye. The pupil cannot[be used to] hide a man’s wickedness.If within the breast [all] be correct, the pupilis bright; if within the breast [all] be notcorrect, the pupil is dull.

2. “Listen to aman’s words, and look at the pupil of his eye;—howcan a man conceal [his character]?”

XVI. Mencius said,“The courteous do not insult others, and the economical donot plunder others. The ruler who treats men with insult and plundersthem is only afraid that they will not prove submissive tohim;—how can he be regarded as courteous or economical? Howcan courtesy and economy be made out of tones of the voice and a smilingmanner?”

XVII. [1] Shun-yu K‘wăn said, “Is it the rulethat males and females shall not allow their hands to touch in giving orreceiving anything?” Mencius replied, “It is therule.” “If a man’s sister-in-law bedrowning,” asked K‘wăn,“shall he rescue her by the hand?”[Mencius] said, “He who would not[so] rescue his drowning sister-in-law would be awolf. For males and females not to allow their hands to touch in givingand receiving is the [general] rule; to rescue bythe hand a drowning sister-in-law is a peculiar exigency.

2. [K‘wăn] said,“Now the whole kingdom is drowning; and how is it that you,Master, will not rescue it?”

[3] [Mencius]replied, “A drowning kingdom must be rescued by rightprinciples, as a drowning sister-in-law has to be rescued by the hand.Do you, Sir, wish me to rescue the kingdom with my hand?”

XVIII. 1. Kung-sun Ch‘owsaid, “Why is it that the superior man does not[himself] teach his son?”

[2] Menciusreplied, “The circumstances of the case forbid its beingdone. A teacher must inculcate what is correct. Doing this, and hislesson not being learned, he follows it up with being angry; and throughthus being angry, he is offended, contrary to what should be,[with his pupil]. [At the same time,the pupil] says, ‘My master inculcates on me whatis correct, and he himself does not proceed in a correctpath.’ Thus father and son would be offended with each other,but when father and son come to be offended with each other, the case isevil.

[3] “The ancients exchanged sons, and one taught the son ofanother.

4. “Between fatherand son there should be no reproving admonitions as to what is good.Such reproofs lead to alienation; and than alienation there is nothingmore inauspicious.”

XIX. [1] Mencius said,“Of services which is the greatest? The service of parents isthe greatest. Of charges which is the greatest? The charge ofone’s self is the greatest. That those who do not fail tokeep themselves are able to serve their parents is what I have heard.[But] I have neverheard of any who, having failed to keep themselves, were able[notwithstanding] to serve their parents.

[2] “Everything[done] is a service, but the service of parents isthe root of all others. Everything [obligatory] isa charge, but the charge of one’s self is the root of allothers.

[3] “Tsăng-tsze, in nourishing Tsăng Seih,was always sure to have spirits and flesh provided. And when they wereabout to be removed, he would ask respectfully to whom [whatwas left] should be given. If [hisfather] asked whether there was anything left, he was sure tosay, ‘There is.’ After the death ofTsăng Seih, when Tsăng Yuen came to nourishTsăng-tsze, he was sure to have spirits and flesh provided;but when the things were about to be removed, he did not ask to whom[what was left] should be given, and if[his father] asked whether there was anythingleft, he would answer, ‘No;’—intendingto bring them on again. This was what iscalled—‘nourishing the mouth and body.’We may call Tsăng-tsze’spractice—‘nourishing the will.’

[4] “To serveone’s father as Tsăng-tsze served his may[be pronounced filial piety].”

XX. Mencius said, “Itis not enough to reprove [aruler] on account of [his mal-employmentof] men, nor to blame [errors of]government. It is only the great man who can correct what is wrong inthe ruler’s mind. Let the ruler be benevolent, and all[his acts] will be benevolent. Let the ruler berighteous, and all [his acts] will be righteous.Let the ruler be correct, and everything will be correct. Once rectifythe ruler, and the State will be firmly settled.”

XXI. Mencius said, “Thereare cases of praise which could not have been expected, and of reproachwhere the parties have been seeking to be perfect.”

XXII. Mencius said, “Men’s being ready with their wordsarises simply from their not having been reproved.”

XXIII. Mencius said,“The evil with men is that they like to be teachers ofothers.”

XXIV. [1] The discipleYoh-ching went in the train of Tsze-gaou to Ts‘e.

[2] He came to seeMencius, who said to him, “Are you, Sir, also come to seeme?” “Master, why do you use suchwords?” was the reply. “How many days have youbeen here?” asked [Mencius].“I came [only] yesterday,”said [the other]. “Yesterday! Then isit not with reason that I thus speak?” “Mylodging-house was not arranged,” urged[Yoh-ching]. “Have youheard,” said [Mencius] “thata scholar’s lodging-house must be arranged before he visitshis master?”

3. [Yoh-ching] said, “I have donewrong.”

XXV. Mencius,addressing the disciple Yoh-ching, said, “Your coming here inthe train of Tsze-gaou was only [because of] thefood and the drink [that you would so get]. Icould not have thought that you, Sir, having learned the ways of theancients, would have acted with a view to eating anddrinking.”

XXVI. [1] Mencius said, “There are three things which are unfilial, andto have no posterity is the greatest of them.

[2] “Shunmarried without informing his parents because of this,—lesthe should have no posterity. Superior men consider that his doing so wasthe same as if he had informed them.”

XXVII. [1] Mencius said,“The richest fruit of benevolence is this,—theservice of one’s parents. The richest fruit of righteousnessis this,—the service of one’s elder brother.

[2] “The richest fruit of wisdom is this,—the knowingthose two things and not departing from them. The richest fruit ofpropriety is this,—the ordering and adorning those twothings. The richest fruit of music is this,—the joying inthose two things. When joyed in, they grow. Growing, how can they berepressed? When they come to this state that they cannot be repressed,then unconsciously the feet begin to dance and the hands tomove.”

XXVIII. [1] Mencius said,“[Suppose the case of] all under heaventurning with great delight to an individual to submit to him. To regard all under heaven[thus] turning to him with delight but as a bundleof grass;—only Shun was capable of this. [Heconsidered that] if [one] could not get[the hearts of] his parents he could not beconsidered a man, and if he could not get to an entire accord with hisparents, he could not be considered a son.

[2] “ByShun’s completely fulfilling the duty of serving parents,Koo-sow was brought to feel delight [in what wasgood]. When Koo-sow was brought to feel delight[in what was good], all under heaven weretransformed. When Koo-sow was brought to feel delight [inwhat was good], all fathers and sons under heaven wereestablished [in their respective duties]. This maywell be called great filial piety.”

LE LOW. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius said,“Shun was born in Choo-fung, removed to Foo-hea, and died inMing-t‘ëaou;—a man [from thecountry] of the wild tribes on the east.

[2] “King Wăn wasborn in K‘e-chow and died in Pieh-ying;—a man[from the country] of the wild tribes on thewest.

[3] “Those regions were distant from each other more than athousand le, and the age of the one[sage] was posterior to that of the other morethan a thousand years. But when they got their wish and carried out[their principles] throughout the middle States,it was like uniting the two halves of a seal.

4. “[Whenwe examine] the sages—the earlier and thelater—their principles are found to be thesame.”

II. [1] WhenTsze-ch‘an was chief minister of the State ofCh‘ing, he would convey people across the Tsin and the Wei inhis carriage.

2. Mencius said, “Itwas kind, [but showed that] he did not understandthe practice of government.

[3] “In theeleventh month of the year the foot-bridges should be completed, and thecarriage-bridges in the twelth month, and the people will[then] not have the trouble of wading.

[4] “Let a governor conducthis rule on the principles of equal justice, and he may cause people tobe removed out of his path when he goes abroad; but how can he conveyeverybody across the rivers?

5. “Thus if agovernor will [try] to please everybody, he willfind the days not sufficient [for hiswork].”

III. [1] Mencius addressed himself to king Seuen of Ts‘e, saying,“When a ruler regards his ministers as his hands and feet, they regard him as their belly andheart; when he regards them as his dogs and horses, they regard him asthey do any ordinary man; when he regards them as the ground or asgrass, they regard him as a robber and an enemy.”

[2] The king said, “According tothe rules of propriety, [a minister] should wearmourning [when he hears of the death of] a rulerwhose service he had left;—how must [theruler] have regarded him that [theminister] shall thus wear mourning for him?”

[3] Mencius said, “Theadmonitions [of a minister] having been followedand his advice listened to, so that blessings have descended on thepeople, if for some cause he leaves [the State],the ruler sends an escort to conduct him beyond the boundaries, and alsosends before him [a recommendatory notice of him]to the State to which he is proceeding. When he has been gone threeyears and does not return, [only] then does hetake back his fields and residence. This treatment is what we call‘a thrice-repeated display of consideration.’ Whena ruler acts thus, mourning will be worn [on hearing of hisdeath].

4. “Now-a-days theremonstrances of a minister are not followed, and his advice is notlistened to, so that no blessings descend on the people. When for anycause he leaves the State, the ruler tries to seize and hold him as aprisoner. He also pushes him to extremity in the State to which he hasgone, and on the day of his departure he takes back his fields andresidence. This treatment shows [the ruler] to bewhat we call ‘a robber and anenemy;’—how can mourning be worn for ‘arobber and an enemy’?”

IV. Mencius said,“When inferior officers are put to death without any crime,it is [time] for the great officers to leave[the State]. When the people are slaughteredwithout any cause, it is [time] for the inferiorofficers to remove.”

[V] Mencius said,“If the ruler be benevolent, all will be benevolent; if theruler be righteous, all will be righteous.”

VI. Mencius said, “Acts of propriety which are not[really] proper, and acts of righteousness whichare not [really] righteous, the great man does notdo.”

VII. Menciussaid, “Those who keep the Mean train up those who do not, andthose who have ability train up those who have not, and therefore menrejoice in having fathers and elder brothers of virtue and talent. Ifthose who keep the Mean spurn those who do not, and those who haveability spurn those who have not, then the space betweenthem—those who have the virtue and talents and those who areinferior to them—will not amount to an inch.”

VIII. Mencius said, “When menhave what they will not do, they are prepared to act in what they do do[with effect].”

IX. Mencius said, “What future misery are they sure to have toendure who talk of what is not good in others!”

[X] Menciussaid, “Chung-ne did not do extraordinarythings.”

XI. Menciussaid, “The great man does not think before hand of his wordsthat they shall be sincere, nor of his actions that they shall beresolute;—he simply [speaks and does]what is right.”

XII. Mencius said, “The greatman is he who does not lose his child’sheart.”

XIII. Mencius said, “The nourishment of the living is not fit to beaccounted the great thing. It is only in performing their obsequies whendead that we have what can be considered the greatthing.”

XIV. Mencius said, “Thesuperior man makes profound advances [in what he islearning], and by the proper course, wishing to get hold ofit as in himself. Having got hold of it in himself, he abides in itquietly and firmly. Abiding in it quietly and firmly, he reposes a deepreliance on it. Reposing a deep reliance on it, he lays hold of it onthe right and left, meeting with it as a fountain [from whichthings flow]. It is on this account that the superior manwishes to get hold of [what he is learning] inhimself.”

XV. Mencius said, “Inlearning extensively and setting forth minutely [what islearned], [the object of the superiorman] is to go back and set forth in brief what isessential.”

XVI. Menciussaid, “Never has he who would by his excellence subdue menbeen able to subdue them. Let [a ruler seek] byhis excellence to nourish men, and he will be able to subdue all underheaven. It is impossible that one should attain to the true royal swayto whom the hearts of all under heaven are not subject.”

XVII. Mencius said, “Words which are not true are[all] inauspicious, but those which are most trulyobnoxious to the charge of being inauspicious are those which throw intothe shade men of talents and virtue.”

XVIII. [1] The disciple Seu said,“Chung-ne often praised water, saying, ‘O water! Owater!’ What did he find in water [topraise]?”

2. Mencius replied,“How the water from a spring gushes out! It rests not day nornight. It fills up every hole, and then advances, flowing on to the fourseas. Such is water having a spring! It was this which he found in it[to praise].

[3] “But supposethat [the water] has no spring. In the seventh andeighth months the rain collects, and the channels in the fields are allfilled, but their being dried up again may be expected in a short time.Thus it is that a superior man is ashamed of a reputation beyond thefact [of his merits].”

XIX. [1] Menciussaid, “That whereby man differs from the animals is but small. The mass of men cast it away, whilesuperior men preserve it.

[2] “Shun clearly understood the multitude of things, and closelyobserved the relations of humanity. He walked along the path ofbenevolence and righteousness, and did not pursue [as by anyeffort] benevolence and righteousness.”

XX. [1] Mencius said, “Yu hated thepleasant wine, and loved good words.

[2] “T‘ang held fast the Mean, and employed men oftalents and virtue wherever they came from.

[3] “King Wanlooked on the people as [he would do with affectionateinterest] on a man who was wounded; he looked towards theright path as [earnestly as] if he did not seeit.

4. “King Woo did notdisregard the near, nor forget the distant.

5. “The duke of Chowdesired to unite in himself [the virtues of those]kings, [the founders of the] three[dynasties], that he might display in his practice[those] four things [which theydid]. If [in his practice] there wasanything which did not agree with them, he looked up and thought of it,from day-time into the night; and when he was fortunate enough to master[the difficulty], he sat waiting for themorning.”

XXI. 1. Mencius said,“The traces of true royal rule were extinguished, and[the royal] odes ceased to be produced. When thoseodes ceased to be produced, then the Ch‘unTs‘ëw was made.

2. “The Shing ofTsin, the T‘aou-wuh of Ts‘oo, and theCh‘un Ts‘ëw of Loo were[books] of the same character.

3. “The subjects[of the Ch‘unTs‘ëw] are Hwan of Ts‘e andWăn of Tsin, and its style is the historical. Confucius said,‘Its righteous decisions I ventured to make.’”

XXII. [1] Mencius said,“The influence of a sovereign sage terminates in the fifthgeneration. The influence of one who is merely a sage does the same.

[2] “I could not bea disciple of Confucius himself, but I have endeavoured to cultivate myvirtue by means of others [who were].

XXIII. Mencius said,“When it appears proper to take [athing], and [afterwards] not proper, totake it is contrary to moderation. When it appears proper to give[a thing], and [afterwards]not proper, to give it is contrary to kindness. When it appears properto sacrifice one’s life, and[afterwards] not proper, to sacrifice it iscontrary to bravery.”

XXIV. [1] P‘ang Mung learned archery of E. When he had completelyacquired all the method of E, thinking that under heaven only E wassuperior to himself, he slew him. Mencius said, “In this caseE also was to blame. Kung-ming E [indeed] said,‘It would appear that E was not to be blamed,’ buthe [only] meant that the blame attaching to himwas slight;—how can he be held to have been without anyblame?

[2] “The people ofCh‘ing sent Tsze-choh Yu-tsze to make an incursion into Wei,which sent Yu Kung-sze to pursue him. Tsze-choh Yu-tsze said,‘To-day I feel unwell, and cannot hold my bow;—Iam a dead man.’ [At the same time] heasked his driver who was his pursuer; and being told that it was YuKung-sze, he said, ‘I shall live.’ The driversaid, ‘Yu Kung-sze is the best archer of Wei, what do youmean by saying that you shall live?’ ‘YuKung-sze,’ replied he, ‘learned archery from YinKung-t‘o, who again learned it from me. YinKung-t‘o is an upright man, and the friends of his selectionmust be upright [also].’ When YuKung-sze came up, he said, ‘Master, why are you not holdingyour bow?’ [Yu-tsze] answered,‘To-day I am feeling unwell, and am unable to hold mybow.’ [Kung-sze] said, ‘Ilearned archery from Yin Kung-t‘o, who again learned it fromyou. I cannot bear to injure you with your own science. The business oftoday, however, is my ruler’sbusiness, which I dare not neglect.’ He then took an arrowand knocked off the steel against his carriage-wheel. [Inthis way] he discharged four of them, and turnedback.”

XXV. [1] Mencius said,“If the lady Se had been wearing a filthy head-dress, peoplewould all have stopped their noses in passing her.

[2] “Though a man be wicked, yet, if he adjust his thoughts,fast, and bathe, he may sacrifice to God.”

XXVI. [1] Menciussaid, “All who speak of the natures [ofthings], have in fact only their phenomena [toreason from], and the value of a phenomenon is in its beingnatural.

[2] “What I hate in yourwise men is their chiselling out [theirconclusions]. If those wise men would act as Yu did when heconveyed away the waters, there would be nothing to dislike in theirwisdom. The way in which Yu conveyed away the waters was by doing thatwhich gave him no trouble. If your wise men would also do that whichgave them no trouble, their wisdom would also be great.

[3] “There is heaven so high; there are the stars and zodiacalspaces so distant. If we have investigated their phenomena, we may,while sitting [in our places], ascertain thesolstices for a thousand years[past].”

XXVII. [1] The officerKung-hăng having in hand the funeral of his son, the masterof the Right went to condole with him. When [thisnoble] entered the door, some motioned to him to come tothem, and spoke with him, and others went to his place and spoke withhim.

2. Mencius did not speak withhim, on which the master of the Right was displeased, and said,“All the gentlemen have spoken with me. There is only Menciuswho has not spoken with me, thereby slighting me.”

[3] When Mencius heard of this remark, he said, “According to theprescribed rules, in the court we must not change our places to speak with one another, and must not passout of our own rank to bow to one another. I was wishing to observethese rules;—is it not strange that Tsze-gaou should think Iwas thereby slighting him?”

XXVIII. 1. Mencius said,“That wherein the superior man is different from other men iswhat he preserves in his heart;—namely, benevolence andpropriety.

2. “The benevolentman loves others; the man of propriety shows respect to others.

3. “He who lovesothers is always loved by them, and he who respects others is alwaysrespected by them.

4. “Here is a man whotreats me in a perverse and unreasonablemanner;—[as] a superior man, I willturn round upon myself, [and say,] ‘Imust have been wanting in benevolence; I must have been devoid ofpropriety;—how [else] should this havehappened to [me]?’

5. “Having thusexamined myself, I am [specially] benevolent, and[specially] observant of propriety. If theperversity and unreasonableness of the other be still the same,[as] a superior man [I willsay], ‘I must have been failing to do myutmost.’

6. “I again turnround upon myself, and proceed to do my utmost. If the perversity andunreasonableness of the other be still the same,[as] a superior man, I will say, ‘Thisis a man utterly lost indeed. Since he conducts him so, there is nothingto choose between him and a beast; why should I go to trouble myselfabout a beast?’

7. “Thus it is thatthe superior man has a life-long anxiety, but not onemorning’s serious trouble. As to what is matter of anxiety tohim, he has it[thus]:—‘Shun,’[he says,] ‘was a man, and I also am aman. Shun gave an example to all under heaven, and [hisconduct] was fit to be handed downto future ages, while I am nothing better than a villager.’This indeed is proper matter of anxiety to him; but in what way is heanxious? Simply that he may be like Shun. As to what would be matter ofserious trouble to a superior man, there is no such thing. He doesnothing which is contrary to benevolence; he does nothing which is notaccording to propriety. Should there be one morning’strouble, as a superior man he does not reckon it atrouble.”

XXIX. [1] Yu and Tseih,in an age of tranquillizing [government], thricepassed their doors without entering them. Confucius praised them.

[2] Yen-tsze, in an age of disorder,dwelt in a mean narrow lane, having his single bamboo-dish of rice, andhis single gourd-cup of water. Other men could not have endured thedistress, but he did not allow his joy to be affected by it. Confucius[also] praised him.

3. Mencius said, “Yu,Tseih, and Yen Hwuy agreed in the principles of their conduct.

4. “Yu thought thatif any one under heaven were drowned, it was as if he himself drownedhim. Tseih thought that if any one under heaven suffered hunger, it wasas if he himself famished him. It was on this account that they were soearnest.

5. “If Yu and Tseih,and Yen-tsze could have exchanged places, they would have done each whatthe other did.

[6] “Here now in the same apartment with you are people fighting;and [you wish to] part them. Though you were to part them with your cap tied on overyour hair unbound, your conduct would be allowable.

7. “If the fightingwere [only] in your village or neighbourhood, andyou were to go to part them with your cap [so]tied on over your hair unbound, you would be in error. Though you wereto shut your door [in such a case], your conductwould be allowable.”

XXX. [1] The disciple Kung-toosaid, “Throughout the whole State, all pronounceK‘wang Chang unfilial, and yet you, Master, keep company withhim, and moreover treat him with politeness. I venture to ask why you doso.”

[2] Mencius replied, “There arefive things which in the common parlance of the age are said to beunfilial. The first is laziness in the use of one’s fourlimbs, so as not to attend to the maintenance of his parents. The secondis gambling and chess-playing, and being fondof spirits, so as not to attend to the maintenance of one’sparents. The third is being fond of goods and money, and being selfishlyattached to one’s wife and children, so as not to attend tothe maintenance of one’s parents. The fourth is following thedesires of one’s ears and eyes, so as to bringone’s parents to disgrace. The fifth is being fond ofbravery, fighting and quarrelling, so as to endanger his parents. IsChang-tsze guilty of any one of these things?

[3] “BetweenChang-tsze and his father there arose disagreement, he, the son,reproving his father to urge him to what was good.

4. “To urge oneanother by reproofs to what is good is the way of friends. But suchurging between father and son is the greatest injury to the kindlyfeeling [that should prevail between them].

[5] “Did not Chang-tszewish to have all that belongs to [therelationships] of husband and wife, child and mother? Butbecause he had offended his father and was not permitted to approachhim, he sent away his wife and drave forth his son, and would not forall [the rest of] his life receive any cherishingattentions from them. He settled it in his mind that, if he did not actin this way, his would be the greatest of crimes. Such and nothing moreis the case of Chang-tsze.”

XXXI. [1] WhenTsăng-tsze dwelt in Woo-shing, there came [a bandof] plunderers from Yueh. Some one said [tohim], “The plunderers are come; why not leavethis?” [On this Tsăng-tsze left thecity], saying [to the man in charge of hishouse], “Do not let any one lodge in my house,lest he break and injure the plants and shrubs about it.” Butwhen the plunderers were withdrawing[he sent word], saying, “Repair thewalls and roof of my house; I will return to it;” and whenthe plunderers had retired, he returned. His disciples said,“Since our Master was treated with so much attention andrespect, for him to be the first, on the arrival of the plunderers, togo away, so as to be observed by the people, and then, on theirretiring, to return, seems to us to be improper.” Shin-yewHăng said [to them], “You donot understand this matter. Formerly, when [the house ofus], the Shin-yëw, was exposed to the outbreak ofthe grass-carriers, there were seventy disciples in ourMaster’s following, and none of them took any part in thematter.”

[2] WhenTsze-sze was living in Wei, there came plunderers from Ts‘e.Some one said to him, “The plunderers are coming; why notleave this?” [But] Tsze-sze said,“If I go away, whom will the ruler have with him to guard[the city]?”

[3] Menciussaid, “Tsăng-tsze and Tsze-sze agreed in theprinciple of their conduct. Tsăng-tsze was ateacher;—in the position of a father or elder brother.Tsze-sze was a minister;—in a meaner position. If they couldhave exchanged places, each would have done what the otherdid.”

XXXII. The officer Ch‘oo said[to Mencius], “The king sent a personto spy out whether you, Sir, were really different from othermen.” Mencius replied, “How should I be different from other men? Yaou and Shunwere just the same as other men.”

XXXIII. [1] “A manof Ts‘e had a wife and a concubine, and lived together withthem in his house. When their good-man went out, he was sure to gethimself well filled with spirits and flesh and then return, and on hiswife’s asking him with whom he had been eating and drinking,they were sure to be all men of wealth and rank. The wife informed theconcubine, saying, ‘When the good-man goes out, he is sure tocome back having partaken plentifully of spirits and flesh, and when Iask him with whom he has been eating and drinking, they are all men ofwealth and rank. And yet no men of distinction ever come[here]. I will spy out where our good-mangoes.’ [Accordingly] she got up earlyin the morning, and privately followed the good-man to where he wasgoing. All through the city there was nobody who stood and talked withhim. At last he came to those who were sacrificing among the tombsoutside the outer wall on the east, and begged what they had left. Notbeing satisfied, he looked round him and went to anotherparty;—and this was the way in which he got himself satiated.His wife went home, and informed the concubine, saying, ‘Itwas to the good-man that we looked up in hopeful contemplation, and withwhom our lot is cast for life;—and these are hisways.’ [On this] she and the concubinereviled their good-man, and wept together in the middle courtyard.[In the mean time] the good-man, knowing nothingof all this, came in with a jaunty air, carrying himself proudly tothem.

[2] “According to theview which a superior man takes of things, as to the ways by which menseek for riches, honours, gain, and advancement, there are few of theirwives and concubines who might not be ashamed and weep together becauseof them.”

BOOK V. [*]

WAN CHANG. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Wan Chang asked[Mencius], saying,“[When] Shun went into the fields, hecried out and wept towards the pitying heavens. Why did he cry out andweep?” Mencius replied, “He was dissatisfied andfull of earnest desire.”

[2] Wan Chang pursued, “Whenhis parents love him, [a son] rejoices and forgetsthem not; and when they hate him, though they punish him, he does notallow himself to be dissatisfied. Was Shun then dissatisfied[with his parents]?”[Mencius said], “Ch‘ang Seihasked Kung-ming Kaou, saying, ‘As to Shun’s goinginto the fields, I have received your instructions; but I do notunderstand about his weeping and crying out to the pitying heavens, andto his parents.’ Kung-ming Kaou answered him, ‘You do not understand thatmatter.’ Now Kung-ming Kaou thought that the heart of afilial son [like Shun] could not be so free fromsorrow [as Seih seemed to imagine he might havebeen]. [Shun would be saying,]‘I exert my strength to cultivate the fields, but I amthereby only discharging my duty as a son. What is there[wrong] in me that my parents do not loveme?’

[3] “Theemperor caused his own [children],—ninesons and two daughters, the various officers, oxen and sheep,storehouses and granaries, [all] to be preparedfor the service of Shun amid the channeled fields. Most of the officersin the empire repaired to him. The emperor designed that he shouldsuperintend the empire along with himself, and then to transfer it tohim. But because his parents were not in accord with him, he felt like apoor man who has nowhere to turn to.

4. “To be an objectof complacency to the officers of the empire is what men desire; but itwas not sufficient to remove the sorrow of [Shun].The possession of beauty is what men desire,—but though[Shun] had for his wives the two daughters of theemperor, it was not sufficient to remove his sorrow. Riches are what mendesire, but though the empire was the rich property [ofShun], it was not enough to remove his sorrow. Honours arewhat men desire, but though [Shun] had the dignityof being the son of Heaven, it was not sufficient to remove his sorrow.The reason why his being the object of men’s complacency, thepossession of beauty, riches, and honours, could not remove his sorrow was because it could be removed only byhis being in [entire] accord with his parents.

5. “The desire of achild is towards his father and mother. When he becomes conscious of[the attractions of] beauty, his desire is towardsyoung and beautiful women. When he [comes to] havea wife and children, his desire is towards them. When he obtains office,his desire is towards his ruler; and if he cannot get the regard of hisruler, he burns within. [But] the man of greatfilial piety, all his life, has his desire towards his parents. In thegreat Shun I see the case of one whose desire was towards them when hewas fifty years old.”

II. [1] WanChang asked [Mencius], saying, “It issaid in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘How do we proceed in taking a wife?

- Announcement must [first] be made to ourparents.’

If [the rule] be indeed as thusexpressed, no one ought to have illustrated it so well asShun;—how was it that Shun’s marriage took placewithout his informing [his parents]?”Mencius replied, “If he had informed them, he would not havebeen able to marry. That male and female dwell together is the greatestof human relations. If [Shun] had informed hisparents, he must have made void this greatest of human relations, andincurred thereby their resentment. It was on this account that he didnot inform them.”

[2] Wan Chang said, “As to Shun’s marrying withoutmaking announcement [to his parents], I have heardyour instructions.[But] how was it that the emperor gave him hisdaughters as wives without informing [hisparents]?” [Mencius] said,“The emperor also knew that, if he informed his parents, hecould not have given him his daughters as wives.”

[3] Wan Changsaid, “His parents set Shun to repair a granary, and thenremoved the ladder [by which he had ascended],[after which] Koo-sow set fire to it. They senthim to dig a well, [from which he managed to] getout; but they, [not knowing this,] proceeded tocover it up. [His brother] Sëang said,‘Of this scheme to cover up the city-forming gentleman themerit is all mine. Let my parents have his oxen and sheep; let them havehis granaries and storehouses. His shield and spear shall be mine; hislute shall be mine; his carved bow shall be mine; and I will make histwo wives attend for me to my bed.’ Sëang thenwent away and entered Shun’s house, and there was Shun upon acouch with his lute. Sëang said, ‘[I amcome] simply because I was thinking anxiously aboutyou,’ [and at the same time] he lookedashamed. Shun said to him, ‘There are all my officers; do youtake the management of them for me.’ I do not know whetherShun was ignorant of Sëang’s wishing to killhim.” [Mencius] replied,“How could he be ignorant of it? But when Sëangwas sorrowful, he was also sorrowful, and when Seang was joyful, he wasalso joyful.”

[4] [Wan Chang]continued, “Then was Shun one who rejoicedhypocritically?” “No,” was the reply.“Formerly some one sent a present of a live fish toTsze-ch‘an of Ch‘ing. Tsze-ch‘anordered his pond-keeper to feed it in thepond; but the man cooked it, and reported the execution of hiscommission, saying, ‘When I first let it go, it lookedembarrassed. In a little it seemed to be somewhat at ease, and then itswam away as if delighted.’ ‘It had got into itselement!’ said Tsze-ch‘an. ‘It had gotinto its element!’ The pond-keeper went out and said,‘Who calls Tsze-ch‘an wise? When I had cooked andeaten the fish, he said, “It has got into its element! It hasgot into its element!” ’ Thus a superior man maybe imposed on by what seems to be as it ought to be, but it is difficultto entrap him by what is contrary to right principle. Sëangcame in the way in which the love of his elder brother would have madehim come, and therefore Shun truly believed him, and rejoiced at it.What hypocrisy was there?”

III. [1] WanChang said, “Sëang made it his daily business tokill Shun;—why was it that, when [thelatter] was raised to be the son of Heaven, he[only] banished him?” Mencius replied,“He invested him with a State, and some have said that it wasbanishing him.”

[2] Wan Changsaid, “Shun banished the superintendent of Works toYëw-chow, sent away Hwan-tow to mount Ts‘ung, slewthe [prince of] San-mëaou in San-wei,and imprisoned K‘wăn on mount Yu. When those fourcriminals [were thus dealt with], all under heavensubmitted to him;—it was a cutting off of men who weredestitute of benevolence. But Sëang was [of allmen] the most destitute of benevolence, and[Shun] invested him with the State ofPe;—of what crime had the people of Pe been guilty? Does a benevolent man really act thus? In the caseof other men, he cut them off; in the case of his brother, he investedhim with a State.” [Mencius] replied,“A benevolent man does not lay up anger, nor cherishresentment, against his brother, but only regards him with affection andlove. Regarding him with affection, he wishes him to enjoy honour;loving him, he wishes him to be rich. The investing him with Pe was toenrich and ennoble him. If while [Shun] himselfwas emperor, his brother had been a common man, could he have been saidto regard him with affection and love?”

[3] [Wan Changsaid,] “I venture to ask what is meant by somesaying that it was a banishing [ofSeang].” [Mencius] replied,“Sëang could do nothing [ofhimself] in his State. The emperor appointed an officer tomanage its government, and to pay over its revenues to him; andtherefore it was said that it was a banishing of him? How[indeed] could he be allowed the means ofoppressing the people there? Nevertheless, [Shun]wished to be continually seeing him, and therefore he came unceasinglyto court, as is signified in that expression, ‘He did notwait for the rendering of tribute, or affairs of government, to receive[the prince of] Pe.’ ”

IV. [1] Hëen-k‘ëw Mung asked Mencius, saying,“There is the old saying,—‘An officerof complete virtue cannot be employed as a minister by his ruler, nortreated as a son by his father.’ Shun stood with his face tothe south, and Yaou, at the head of all thefeudal princes, appeared in his court with his face to the north. Koosowalso appeared at Shun’s court with his face to the north; andwhen Shun saw him, his countenance assumed a look of distress. Confuciussaid, ‘At this time the empire was in a perilous conditionindeed! How unsettled was its state!’ I do not know whetherwhat is thus said really took place.” Mencius said,“No. These are not the words of a superior man, but thesayings of an uncultivated person of the east of Ts‘e. WhenYaou was old, Shun took the management of affairs for him. It is said inthe Canon of Yaou, ‘After twenty-eight years, Fang-heundemised, and the people mourned for him as for a parent three years. Allwithin the four seas, the eight instruments of music were stopped andhushed.’ Confucius said, ‘There are not two sunsin the sky, nor two sovereigns over the people.[If] Shun had already been [in theposition of] the son of Heaven, and had moreover led on allthe feudal princes of the empire to observe the three years’mourning for Yaou, there must in that case have been two sons ofHeaven.’ ”

[2] Hëen-k‘ëw Mung said, “On thepoint of Shun’s not employing Yaou as a minister, I havereceived your instructions. But it is said in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘Under the wide heaven,

- All is the king’s land;

- Within the sea-boundaries of the land,

- All are the king’s servants.’

When Shun became emperor, I venture to ask how it was that Koo-sow was not one of hisservants.” [Mencius] replied,“That ode is not to be understood in thatway;—[it speaks of] being laboriouslyengaged in the king’s business, and not being able to nourishone’s parents, [as if the subject ofit] said, ‘This is all the king’sbusiness, but I alone am supposed to have ability, and made to toil init.’ Therefore those who explain the odes must not insist onone term so as to do violence to a sentence, nor on a sentence so as todo violence to the general scope. They must try with their thoughts tomeet that scope, and then they will apprehend it. If we simply takesingle sentences, there is that in the ode called the ‘YunHan,’

- ‘Of the remnant of Chow, among the black-hairedpeople,

- There will not be half a man left.’

If it had really been as thus expressed, then not anindividual of the people of Chow would have been left.

3. “Of all that afilial son can attain to, there is nothing greater than his honouringhis parents. Of what can be attained to in honouring one’sparents, there is nothing greater than the nourishing them with theempire. To be the father of the son of Heaven is the height of honour.To be nourished with the empire is the height of nourishment. In thiswas verified the sentiment in the Book of Poetry,

- ‘Ever thinking how to be filial,

- His filial mind was the model [which hesupplied].’

4. “In the Book ofHistory it is said, ‘With respectful service he appearedbefore Koo-sow, looking grave and awe-struck, till Koo-sow also wastransformed by his example.’ This is the true case of[the scholar of complete virtue] not being treatedas a son by his father.”

[V] 1. Wan Chang said,“[It is said that] Yaou gave the empire to Shun; was it so?”Mencius replied, “No; the emperor cannot give the empire toanother.”

[2] “Yes; butShun possessed the empire. Who gave it to him?”“Heaven gave it to him,” was the reply.

3. “‘Heaven gave it to him;’ did[Heaven] confer the appointment on him withspecific injunctions?”

4. [Mencius] said, “No; Heaven does notspeak. It simply showed its will by his [personal]conduct, and by [his conduct of]affairs.”

5. “ ‘Itshowed its will by his [personal] conduct, and by[his conduct of] affairs,’ ”returned the other;—“how was this?”[Mencius] said, “The emperor canpresent a man to Heaven, but he cannot make Heaven give that man theempire. A feudal prince can present a man to the emperor [totake his place], but he cannot make the emperor give theprincedom to that man. A great officer can present a man to his prince,but he cannot cause the prince to make that man a great officer[in his own room]. Anciently Yaou presented Shunto Heaven, and Heaven accepted him; he displayed him to the people, andthe people accepted him. Therefore I say, ‘Heaven does notspeak. It simply indicated its will by his[personal] conduct, and by [his conductof] affairs.’ ”

[6] [Chang] said,“I presume to ask how it was that[Yaou] presented Shun to Heaven, and Heavenaccepted him, and displayed him to the people, and the people acceptedhim.” The reply was, “He caused him to presideover the sacrifices, and all the Spirits were well pleased with them;thus it was that Heaven accepted him. Hecaused him to preside over the conduct of affairs, and affairs were welladministred, so that all the people reposed under him;—thusit was that the people accepted him. Heaven gave [theempire] to him, and the people gave it to him. Therefore Isaid, ‘The emperor cannot give the empire toanother.’

[7] “Shunassisted Yaou [in the government] for twenty andeight years;—this was more than man could have done, and wasfrom Heaven. When the three years’ mourning consequent on thedeath of Yaou were accomplished, Shun withdrew from the son of Yaou tothe south of the southern Ho. The princes of the empire, however,repairing to court, went not to the son of Yaou, but to Shun. Litigantswent not to the son of Yaou, but to Shun. Singers sang not the son ofYaou, but Shun. Therefore I said that it was Heaven [thatgave him the empire]. It was after this that he went to theMiddle State, and occupied the seat of the son of Heaven. If he had[before these things] taken up his residence inthe palace of Yaou, and applied pressure to his son, it would have beenan act of usurpation, and not the gift of Heaven.

[8] “This view[of Shun’s obtaining the empire] is inaccordance with what is said in The GreatDeclaration,—‘Heaven sees as my people see, Heavenhears as my people hear.’ ”

VI. [1] Wan Chang said,“People say, ‘When [the disposal of theempire] came to Yu, his virtue was inferior [to that of Yaou and Shun], and hedid not transmit it to the worhiest, but to hisson;’—was it so?” Mencius replied,“No; it was not so. When Heaven gave [theempire] to the worthiest, it was given to the worthiest; whenHeaven gave it to the son [of the precedingemperor], it was given to that son. Formerly Shun presentedYu to Heaven for [a period of] seventeen years;and when the three years’ mourning, consequent on the deathof Shun, were accomplished, Yu withdrew from the son of Yu toYang-shing. The people of the empire followed him as, after the death ofYaou, they had not followed his son, but followed Shun. Yu presented Yihto Heaven for [a period of] seven years; and whenthe three years’ mourning consequent on the death of Yu wereaccomplished, Yih withdrew from the son of Yu to the north of Mount Ke.[The princes] repairing to court, and litigants,went not to Yih, but to K‘e, saying, ‘He is theson of our ruler.’ Singers did not sing Yih, but they sangK‘e, saying, ‘He is the son of ourruler.’

2. “That Tan-choo wasnot equal [to his father], and Shun’sson also not equal [to his]; that Shun assistedYaou, and Yu assisted Shun, for a period of many years, conferringbenefits on the people for a long time; that K‘e was virtuousand able, and could reverently enter into and continue the ways of Yu;that Yih assisted Yu for a period of few years, conferring benefits onthe people not for a long time; that the length of time that Shun, Yu,and Yih [assisted in the government] was sodifferent; and that the sons [ofthe emperors] were [one] a man oftalents and virtue, and [the other two] inferior[to their fathers]:—all these thingswere from Heaven, and what could not be produced by man. That which isdone without any one’s [seeming] to doit is from Heaven. That which comes to pass without any one’s[seeming] to bring it about is from Heaven.

[3] “In the case of a privateman’s obtaining the empire, there must be in him virtue equalto that of Shun and Yu, and moreover there must be the presenting him toHeaven by the [preceding] emperor. It was on this[latter] account that Chung-ne did not obtain thekingdom.

[4] “When the throne descends bynatural succession, he who is displaced by Heaven must be likeKëeh or Chow. It was on this account that Yih, E Yin, and theduke of Chow did not obtain the kingdom.

[5] “E Yinassisted T‘ang so that he became sovereign of the kingdom.After the demise of T‘ang, T‘ae-ting having diedwithout being appointed [in his place], Waeping[reigned] two years, and Chung-jin four.T‘ae-Keah [then] was turning upsidedown the canons and example of T‘ang, and E Yin placed him inT‘ung for three years. [There] herepented of his errors, was contrite, and reformed himself. InT‘ung he came to dwell in benevolence and moved towardsrighteousness, during those three years listening to the lessons givento him by E Yin, [after which] that minister againreturned [with him] to Poh.

[6] “The dukeof Chow’s not getting the kingdom was like that ofYih’s not getting [the throne of]Hëa, or E Yin’s [that of]Yin.

[7] “Confuciussaid, ‘T‘ang and Yu resigned [thethrone to the worthiest]; the founders of the Hëa,Yin, and Chow [dynasties] transmitted it to theirsons. The principle of righteousness was the same in [all thecases].”

VII. [1] Wan Chang asked[Mencius], saying, “People say that EYin sought [an introduction to] T‘angby his [knowledge of] cookery;—was itso?”

[2] Menciusreplied, “No, it was not so. E Yin was farming in the landsof the State of Sin, delighting in the principles of Yaou and Shun. Inany matter contrary to the righteousness which they prescribed, or tothe course which they enjoined, though he had been salaried with theempire, he would not have regarded it; though there had been yoked forhim a thousand teams, he would not have looked at them. In any mattercontrary to the righteousness which they prescribed, or to the coursewhich they enjoined, he would not have given nor taken[even] a single straw.

3. “T‘angsent persons with presents of silk to ask him to enter his service. Withan air of indifference and self-satisfaction, he said, ‘Whatcan I do with these silks with which T‘ang invites me? Is itnot best for me to abide in these channeled fields, and therein delightmyself with the principles of Yaou and Shun?’

[4] “T‘angthrice sent persons thus to invite him. After this, with the change ofpurpose displayed in his countenance, he spoke in a different style,saying, ‘Instead of abiding in the channeled fields, andtherein delighting myself with the principles of Yaou and Shun, had Inot better make this ruler one after the style of Yaou and Shun? had Inot better make this people like the people of Yaou and Shun? had I notbetter in my own person see these things for myself?

5. “‘Heaven’s plan in the production of this people isthis:—that they who are first informed, should instruct thosewho are later in being informed, and those who first apprehend[principles] should instruct those who are slowerto do so. I am the one of Heaven’s people who have firstapprehended; I will take these principles and instruct this people inthem. If I do not instruct them, who will do so?’

6. “He thought thatamong all the people of the kingdom, even the private men and women, ifthere were any that did not enjoy such benefits as Yaou and Shunconferred, it was as if he himself pushed them into a ditch. He tookupon himself the heavy charge of all under Heaven in this way, andtherefore he went to T‘ang, and pressed upon him the duty ofattacking Hëa, and saving the people.

[7] “I havenot heard of one who bent himself and at the same time made othersstraight;—how much less could one disgrace himself, andthereby rectify the whole kingdom? The actions of the sages have beendifferent. Some have kept far away [from office],and others have drawn near to it; some have left [theiroffices], and others have not done so; that in which thesedifferent courses all meet, is simply the keeping of their personspure.

8. “I have heard thatE Yin sought [an introduction to] T‘angby the principles of Yaou and Shun; I have not heard that he did so byhis [knowledge of] cookery.’

[9] “In the‘Instructions of E,’ it is said,‘Heaven, destroying [Këeh],commenced attacking him in the palace of Muh; we commenced inPoh.’ ”

VIII. [1] Wan Chang asked[Mencius], saying, “Some say thatConfucius in Wei lived with an ulcer-[doctor], andin Ts‘e with Tseih Hwan, the chief of the eunuchs; was itso?” Mencius said, “No, it was not so. Those arethe inventions of men fond of [strange]things.

[2] “In Wei he lived in thehouse of Yen Ch‘ow-yëw. The wife of the officerMei and the wife of Tsze-loo were sisters. Mei-tsze spoke to Tsze-loo,saying, ‘If Confucius will lodge with me, he may get to be ahigh noble of Wei.’ Tsze-loo reported this to Confucius, whosaid, ‘That is as ordered [byHeaven].’ Confucius advanced according topropriety, and retired according to righteousness. In regard to hisobtaining [office and honour] or not obtainingthem, he said ‘That is as ordered.’ But if he hadlodged with an ulcer-[doctor] and with Tseih Hwan,the chief of the eunuchs, that would neither have been according torighteousness, nor any ordering [of Heaven].

[3] “When Confucius, being dissatisfied in Loo and Wei,[had left those States], he met with the attemptof Hwan, the master of the Horse, in Sung, to intercept and kill him, sothat he had to pass through Sung in the dress of a private man. At thattime, [though] he was in circumstances ofdistress, he lodged in the house of Ching-tsze, the minister of works,who was [then] a minister of Chow, the marquis ofCh‘in.

4. “I have heard thatministers in the service of a court may be known from those to whom theyare hosts, and that ministers coming from a distance may be known fromthose with whom they lodge. If Confucius had lodged with anulcer-[doctor] and with Tseih Hwan, the chief ofthe eunuchs, how could he have been Confucius?”

IX. [1] Wan Change asked [Mencius], saying,“Some say that Pih-le He sold himself to a cattle-keeper ofTs‘in for five sheep-skins, and fed his cattle for him, toseek an introduction to duke Muh ofTs‘in; is this true?” Mencius said,“No, it was not so. This is the invention of some one fond of[strange] things.

[2] “Pih-le He was a man of Yu.” The people ofTs‘in by the inducement of a peih ofCh‘uy-keih and a team of Këuh-ch‘anhorses were asking liberty to march through Yu to attack Kwoh. KungChe-k‘e remonstrated [with the duke of Yu, askinghim not to grant their request], but Pih-le He did notremonstrate.

3. “When he knew thatthe duke of Yu was not to be remonstrated with, and went in consequencefrom that State to Ts‘in, he had reached the age of seventy.If by that time he did not know that it would be a disgraceful thing toseek for an introduction to duke Muh of Ts‘in by feedingcattle, could he be called wise? But not remonstrating where it was ofno use to remonstrate, could he be said not to be wise? Knowing that theduke of Yu would be ruined, and leaving his State before that event, hecould not be said to be not wise. As soon as he was advanced inTs‘in, he knew that duke Muh was one with whom he could havea field for action, and became chief minister to him;—couldhe be said to be not wise? Acting as chief minister in Ts‘in,he made his ruler distinguished throughout the kingdom, and worthy to behanded down to future ages;—if he had not been a man oftalents and virtue, could he have done this? As to selling himself inorder to bring about the destruction of his ruler, even a villager whohad a regard for himself, would not do such a thing;—andshall we say that a man of talents and virtue did it?”

WAN CHANG. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius said, “Pih-e would not allow his eyes to look at abad sight, nor his ears to listen to a bad sound. He would not serve aruler, nor employ a people, of whom he did not approve. In a time ofgood government he took office, and in a time of disorder he retired. Hecould not bear to dwell [at a court] from whichlawless government proceeded, nor among lawless people. To be in thesame place with an [ordinary] villager was thesame in his estimation as to stand in his court robes and court cap amidmire and charcoal. In the time of Chow, he dwelt by the shores of thenorthern sea, waiting for the purification of the kingdom. Thereforewhen men [now] hear the character of Pih-e, thecorrupt become pure, and the weak acquire determination.

[2] “E Yin said, ‘Whom may I not serve as my ruler?whom may I not employ as my people?’ In a time of goodgovernment he took office, and in a time of disorder he did the same. Hesaid, ‘Heaven’s plan in the production of thispeople is this:—that they who are first informed shouldinstruct those who are later in being informed, and they who firstapprehend [principles] should instruct those whoare slower to do so. I am the one of Heaven’s people who havefirst apprehended;—I will take these principles and instructthis people in them.’ He thought that among all the people ofthe kingdom, even the private men and women, if there were any that didnot enjoy such benefits as Yaou and Shun conferred, it was as if hehimself pushed them into a ditch;—so did he take on himself the heavy charge of all under heaven.

[3] “Hwuy ofLëw-hëa was not ashamed to serve an impure ruler,nor did he decline a small office. When advanced to employment, he didnot keep his talents and virtue concealed, but made it a point to carryout his principles. When neglected and left out of office, he did notmurmur, and when straitened by poverty, he did not grieve. When in thecompany of village people, he was quite at ease and could not bear toleave them. [He would say], ‘You areyou, and I am I. Though you stand by my side with bare arms and breast,how can you defile me?’ Therefore when men[now] hear the character of Hwuy ofLëw-hea, the mean become generous, and the niggardly becomeliberal.

[4] “WhenConfucius was leaving Ts‘e he took with his hands the waterfrom the rice which was being washed in it, and went away[with the uncooked rice]. When he was about toleave Loo, he said, ‘I will go by andby;’—it was right he should leave the country ofhis parents in this way. When it was proper to go away quickly he didso; when it was proper to delay, he did so; when it was proper to keepin retirement, he did so; when it was proper to go into office, he didso;—this was Confucius.”

[5] Mencius said, “Pih-eamong the sages was the pure one; E Yin was the one most inclined totake office; Hwuy of Lëw-hea was the accommodating one; andConfucius was the timeous one.

[6] “InConfucius we have what is called a complete concert. A complete concertis when the bell proclaims [the commencement of themusic], and the [ringing] stone closesit. The metal sound commences the blended harmony [of all theinstruments], and the winding up with the stone terminates that blended harmony. Thecommencing that harmony is the work of wisdom, and the terminating it isthe work of sageness.

[7] “As acomparison for wisdom, we may liken it to skill, and as a comparison forsageness, we may liken it to strength,—as in the case ofshooting at a mark a hundred paces distant. That you reach the mark isowing to your strength; but that you hit it is not owing to yourstrength.”

II. [1] Pih-kung Easked [Mencius], “What was thearrangement of dignities and emoluments made by the House ofChow?”

[2] Mencius said, “Theparticulars of that arrangement cannot be learned, for the feudalprinces, disliking them as injurious to themselves, have all made awaywith the records of them. Nevertheless I have learned the generaloutline of them.

[3] “The SON OFHEAVEN was one dignity; the DUKE one; the MARQUIS one; the EARL one; andthe VISCOUNT and BARON formed one,being of equal rank:—altogether making five degrees of dignity. The RULER was onedignity; the MINISTER one; the GREATOFFICER one; the OFFICER OF THE FIRST CLASS one; the OFFICER OF THE SECOND CLASS one; and the OFFICER OF THE LOWEST CLASS one:—altogether making six grades.

[4] “To the son ofHeaven there was allotted a territory of a thousand le square; a duke and a marquis had each a hundred le square; an earl, seventy le; a viscount and a baron, fifty le. The assignments altogether were of fouramounts. Where the territory did not amount to fifty le, the holder could not himself have access to the son ofHeaven. His land was attached to some one of the feudal princes, and wascalled a FOO-YUNG.

5. “A high ministerof the son of Heaven received an amount of territory equal to that of amarquis; a great officer, as much as an earl; and an officer of thefirst class, as much as a viscount or baron.

[6] “In a greatState, where the territory was a hundred le square,the ruler had ten times as much income as one of his high ministers; ahigh minister had four times as much as a great officer; a great officertwice as much as an officer of the first class; an officer of the firstclass, twice as much as one of the middle; and an officer of the middleclass twice as much as one of the lowest. Officers of the lowest class,and such of the common people as were employed in the public offices,had the same emolument,—as much, namely, as what they wouldhave made by tilling the fields.

[7] “In a State of the nextorder, where the territory was seventy le square,the ruler had ten times as much income as one of his high ministers; ahigh minister, thrice as much as a great officer; a great officer, twiceas much as an officer of the first class; an officer of the first class,twice as much as one of the second; and one of the second twice as muchas one of the lowest. Officers of thelowest class and such of the common people as were employed in thepublic offices, had the same emolument,—as much, namely, asthey would have made by tilling the fields.

8. “In a small State,where the territory was fifty le square, the rulerhad ten times as much income as one of his high ministers; a highminister twice as much as a great officer; a great officer twice as muchas an officer of the first class; an officer of the first class twice asmuch as one of the second; one of the second class twice as much as oneof the lowest. Officers of the lowest class, and such of the commonpeople as were employed in the public offices, had the sameemolument,—as much, namely, as they would have made bytilling the fields.

9. “As to those whotilled the fields, each head of a family received a hundred mow. When these were manured, the[best] husbandmen of the first class supportednine individuals, and those ranking next to them supported eight. The[best] husbandmen of the second class supportedseven men, and those ranking next to them supported six; while thelowest class [only] supported five. The salariesof the common people who were employed in the public offices, wereregulated according to these differences.”

III. [1] Wan Chang asked[Mencius], saying, “I venture to askabout [the principles of] friendship.”Mencius replied, “Friendship does not permit of any presumingon the ground of one’s age, or station, or [thecircumstances of] one’s relations. Friendship[with a man] is friendship with his virtue, andthere cannot be any presuming [on suchthings].

[2] “The ministerMăng Hëen was [chief of] afamily of a hundred chariots, and he had fivefriends,—Yoh-ching K‘ew, Muh Ching, and three [others whose names] Ihave forgotten. With these five men Hëen-tsze maintained afriendship, because they thought nothing about his family. If they hadthought about his family, he would not have maintained his friendshipwith them.

[3] “Not only has [the chief of] a familyof a hundred chariots acted thus. The same has been exemplified even inthe ruler of a small State. Duke Hwuy of Pe said, “I treatTsze-sze as my master, and Yen Pan as my friend. As to Wang Shun andCh‘ang Seih, they serve me.

[4] “Not only has the ruler of a small State acted thus. The samething has been exemplified by the ruler of a large State. There was dukeP‘ing of Tsin with Hae T‘ang:—when[T‘ang] told him to come into hishouse, he came; when he told him to be seated, he sat; when he told himto eat, he ate. There might be only coarse rice, and soup of vegetables,but he always ate his fill, not daring to do otherwise. Here, however,[the duke] stopped, and went no farther. He didnot call [T‘ang] to share with him hisHeavenly place, nor to administer with him his Heavenly office, nor topartake with him his Heavenly emolument. His conduct was ascholar’s honouring of virtue and talent; not a king or aduke’s honouring of them.

[5] “Shun went up and had aninterview with the emperor, and the emperor lodged him as his son-in-lawin the second palace. He also partook of Shun’s hospitality.He was host and guest alternately. This was the emperor maintainingfriendship with a common man.

[6] “Respectshown by inferiors to superiors is called giving to the noble theobservance due to rank. Respect shown by superiors to inferiors iscalled giving honour to virtue and talents. The principle ofrighteousness is the same in both cases.”

IV. [1] Wan Chang asked[Mencius], saying, “I venture to askwhat [sentiment of the] mind is expressed in thegifts of courteous intercourse.” Mencius replied,“[The sentiment of]respect.”

2. “Why isit,” pursued the other, “that to decline a giftdecidedly is accounted disrespectful?” The answer was,“When one of honourable rank presents a gift, to say[in the mind], ‘Was the way in which hegot this righteous or not? I must know this before I receiveit,’—this is counted disrespectful, and thereforegifts are not declined.”

[3] [WanChang] went on, “Let me ask this:—Ifone do not in so many express words decline the gift, but havingdeclined it in his heart, saying, ‘He took it from thepeople, and it is not righteous,’ if he then assign someother reason for not receiving it, is not this a propercourse?” Mencius said, “When the donor offers iton the ground of reason, and his manner of doing so is according topropriety, in such a case Confucius would have receivedit.”

[4] Wan Chang said,“Here now is one who stops [and robs]people outside the citygates;—he offers his gift on a ground of reason, and presentsit in accordance with propriety;—would the reception of thegift so acquired by robbery be proper?”[Mencius] said, “It would not beproper. In the ‘Announcement to the Prince ofK‘ang’ it is said, ‘Where men killothers, or violently assault them, to take their property, beingreckless and fearless of death, they are abhorred by all thepeople;’—these are to be put to death withoutwaiting to give them any lesson [or warning]. Yinreceived [this rule] from Hea, and Chow receivedit from Yin; it cannot be questioned, and to the present day is clearlyacknowledged. How can [the gift of a robber] bereceived?”

[5] [WanChang] continued, “The princes of the present daytake from their people, as if they were [so many]robbers. But if they put a good face of propriety on their gifts, thenthe superior man receives them;—I venture to ask how youexplain this?” [Mencius] replied,“Do you think that if a true king were to arise, he wouldcollect all the princes of the present day, and put them to death? Orwould he admonish them, and then, when they did not change[their ways], put them to death? To say that[every one] who takes what does not properlybelong to him is a robber is pushing a point of resemblance to theutmost, and insisting on the most refined idea of righteousness. WhenConfucius took office in Loo, the people struggled together for the gametaken in hunting, and he also did the same. If that struggling for thecaptured game was allowable, how much more may the gifts [ofthe princes] be received!”

[6] [Chang] urged, “Then, when Confuciustook office, was it not with the object that his principles should becarried into practice?” “It was with thatobject,” was the reply. [The othersaid,] “If the practice of his principles was his business, what had he to do with thatstruggling for the captured game?”[Mencius] answered, “Confucius firstrectified the vessels of sacrifice according to the registers, and[enacted] that being so rectified they should notbe supplied with food gathered from every quarter.”“But why did he not leave [theState]?” said [Chang].[Mencius] replied, “He would first makea trial [of carrying his principles intopractice]. When this trial was sufficient [toshow] they could be practised, and they were still notpractised [on a larger scale], he would then goaway. Thus it was that he never completed a residence [in anyState] of three years.

[7] “Confucius took office when hesaw that the practice [of his principles] waspossible; when the reception accorded to him was proper; and when he wassupported by the State. In his relations with the minister Ke Hwan, hetook office because he saw that the practice [of hisprinciples] was possible. With the duke Ling of Wei he tookoffice, because the reception accorded to him was proper. With dukeHëaou of Wei he took office, because he was maintained by theState.”

[V] [1] Mencius said,“Office should not be [sought] onaccount of poverty, but there are times [when it may besought] on that account. A wife should not be taken for thesake of being attended to by her, but there are times [when marriage may be entered on] withthat view.

2. “He who takesoffice because of his poverty must decline an honourable situation, andoccupy a poor one; he must decline riches and prefer a poor[sufficiency].

[3] “What[office] will be in harmony with this declining anhonourable situation and occupying a low one, with this declining richesand preferring a poor sufficiency? [Such an one]as that of being a gate-warder, or beating the watchman’sstick.

[4] “Confucius was once keeper ofstores, and he [then] said, ‘Myaccounts must all be correct; that is all I have to thinkabout.’ He was once in charge of the[ducal] lands, and he [then]said, ‘The oxen and sheep must be large, and fat, andsuperior. That is all I have to think about.’

[5] “When one is in a low station, to speak of high matters is acrime. To stand in the court of his prince, and his principles not becarried into practice, is a disgrace.”

VI. [1] Wan Chang said, “What isthe reason that an officer [unemployed] does notlook to a prince for hismaintenance?” Mencius answered, “He does notpresume [to do so]. When one prince loses hisState, and then throws himself on another for his maintenance, this isin accordance with propriety. But for [such an]officer to look to any of the princes for his maintenance is contrary topropriety.”

[2] Wan Chang said,“If the prince sends him a present of grain, will he receiveit?” “He will receive it,” was theanswer. “What is the principle of right in his receivingit?” [Mencius] said, “Suchis the relation between a ruler and his people that as a matter ofcourse he should help them in their necessities.”

[3] “What is the reasonthat [an officer unemployed] will[thus] accept relief, but will not accept a[stated] bounty?” asked[Chang], and [Mencius] said,“He does not presume [to do thelatter].” “Allow me to ask,”urged the other, “why he does not presume to doso.” The reply was, “[Even]the warder of a gate and the beater of a watchman’s rattlehave their regular duties for which they can take their support fromtheir superiors; but he who without any regular office receives hissuperior’s bounty must be deemed wanting inhumility.”

[4] [Chang again] said, “When a ruler sendsa present [to an officer unemployed], he acceptsit;—I do not know whether this present may be constantlyrepeated.” [Mencius] answered,“There was the way of duke Muh towardsTsze-sze:—He sent frequent inquiries after his health, andmade frequent presents of cooked meat. Tsze-sze was displeased, and atlast, having motioned to the messenger to gooutside the great door, he bowed his head to the ground with his face tothe north, then put his hands twice to the ground, and declined thepresent, saying, ‘From this time forth I shall know that theruler supports me as a dog or a horse.’ And from this time aninferior officer was not sent with the present. When [aruler] professes to be pleased with a man of talents andvirtue, and can neither raise him to office nor support him[in the proper way], can he be said to be[really] pleased with his talents andvirtue?”

[5] [Chang]said, “I venture to ask how the ruler of a State, when hewishes to support a superior man, must proceed that he may be said to doso [in the proper way].”[Mencius] answered, “The present will[at first] be offered as by the ruler’scommission, and [the superior man] will receiveit, twice putting his hands to the ground, and then his head to theground. After this, the store-keeper will continue to send grain, andthe master of the kitchen to send meat, presenting it without anymention of the ruler’s commission. Tsze-sze considered thatthe meat from the [ruler’s] caldron,giving him the trouble of constantly doing obeisance, was not the way tosupport a superior man.

[6] “There was the way of Yaou with Shun:—He causedhis nine sons to serve him, and gave him his two daughters as wives; hecaused the various officers, oxen and sheep, storehouses and granaries,[all] to be prepared to support Shun amid thechanneled fields; and then he raised him to the most exalted station.Hence we have the expression—‘The honouring ofvirtue and talents proper to a king or a duke.’”

VII. [1] Wan Chang said, “Iventure to ask what is the principle of rightin not going to see the princes.” Mencius replied,“[A scholar unemployed], residing inthe city, is called ‘a minister of the market-place andwell;’ one residing in the country is called ‘aminister of the grass and plants.’ In both cases he is acommon man, and it is a rule of propriety that common men who have notpresented the introductory present, and so become ministers[of the court], should not presume to haveinterviews with any of the princes.”

2. Wan Chang said,“If a common man be called to perform any service, he goesand performs it. When a ruler wishes to see a scholar, and calls him,how is it that he does not go?” “To go and performthe service is right, to go and see the ruler would not be right.

[3] “And”[added Mencius] “on what account is itthat the prince wishes to see [thescholar]?” “Because of his extensiveinformation,” was the reply, “or because of histalents and virtue.” “If because of his extensiveinformation,” said [Mencius],“even the son of Heaven does not call [one thusfit to be] a teacher, and how much less may one of theprinces do so! If because of his talents and virtue, I have not heard ofany one’s wishing to see a person with these qualities, andcalling him to his presence.

4. “During thefrequent interviews of duke Muh with Tsze-sze, he[once] said, ‘Anciently in States of athousand chariots, their rulers, with all their resources, have been onterms of friendship with scholars;—what do you think of suchcases?’ Tsze-sze was displeased and said, ‘Theancients had a saying that, “[Thescholar] should be served;” how should they havesaid merely that “He should be made a friend of?”Did not the displeasure of Tsze-sze say[in effect], ‘So far as station isconcerned, you are ruler, and I am a subject; how should I presume to beon terms of friendship with my ruler? But in respect of virtue, youought to make me your master; how can you be on terms of friendship withme?’ [Thus], when a ruler of a thousandchariots sought to be on terms of friendship with a scholar, he couldnot obtain his wish, and how much less might he [presumeto] call him [to his presence]!

[5] “Duke King ofTs’e [once] when he was hunting, calledthe forester to him with a flag. [The forester]refused to come, and the duke was going to kill him. [Withreference to this incident, Confucius said,] ‘Theresolute officer does not forget [that his end maybe] in a ditch or in a stream; the bold officer does notforget that he may lose his head.’ What was it [inthe forester] that Confucius [thus]approved? He approved his not going when summoned by an article whichwas not appropriate to him.”

6. [Chang]said, “I venture to ask with what a forester should becalled.” “With a fur cap,” was thereply. “A common man should be called with a plain banner; ascholar [who has taken office], with a flag havingdragons embroidered on it; and a great officer, with one having featherssuspended from the top of the staff.

7. “When a foresteris called with the article appropriate to the calling of a greatofficer, he would die rather than presume to go. When a common man iscalled with the article for the calling of a scholar [inoffice], how should he presume to go? How much more may weexpect a man of talents and virtue to refuse to go, when he is called ina way unbecoming his character!

[8] “To wish to see a manof talents and virtue, and not take the way to bring it about, is likecalling him to enter and shutting the door against him. Nowrighteousness is the way, and propriety is the door, but it is only the superior man who can follow this way, andgo out and in by this door. It is said in the Book ofPoetry:—

- ‘The way to Chow was like a whetstone

- And straight as an arrow.

- [So] the officers trod it,

- And the common people looked on it.’ ”

[9] Wan Chang said, “WhenConfucius received his ruler’s message calling him[to his presence], he went without waiting for hiscarriage to be yoked; did Confucius then do wrong?”[Mencius] replied, “Confucius was inoffice, and had its appropriate duties devolving on him; and moreover hewas called on the ground of his office.”

VIII. [1] Mencius said to Wan Chang, “Thescholar whose excellence is most distinguished in a village will thereonmake friends of the [other] excellent scholars ofthe village. The scholar whose excellence is most distinguished in aState will thereon make friends of the [other]excellent scholars of the State. The scholar whose excellence is mostdistinguished in the kingdom will thereon make friends of the[other] excellent scholars of the kingdom.

[2] “When[a scholar] finds that his friendship with theexcellent scholars of the kingdom is not sufficient [tosatisfy him], he will ascend to consider the men ofantiquity. He will repeat their poems, and read their books; and as he does not know whether they were asmen all that was approvable, he will consider their history. This is toascend and make friends [of the men ofantiquity].”

IX. [1] King Seuen of Ts‘easked about high ministers. Mencius said, “Which highministers is your Majesty asking about?” “Arethere differences among them?” said the king.“Yes,” was the reply; “there are highministers who are noble, and relatives of the ruler, and there are thosewho are of a different surname from him.” “Allowme to ask,” said the king, “about the highministers who are noble, and relatives of the ruler.”[Mencius] answered, “If the ruler havegreat faults, they ought to remonstrate with him; and if he do notlisten to them, when they have done so again and again, they ought toappoint another in his place.”

[2] Theking looked moved, and changed countenance.

3. [Mencius] said, “Let not your Majestythink [what I say] strange. You asked me, and Idid not dare to reply but correctly.”

4. The king’scountenance became composed, and he begged to ask about the highministers who were of a different surname from the ruler.[Mencius] said, “When the ruler hasfaults, they ought to remonstrate with him; and if he do not listen tothem when they have done so again and again, they ought to leave[the State].”

BOOK VI. [*]

KAOU-TSZE. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] 1. Kaou-tsze said,“[Man’s] nature is like awillow tree, and righteousness is like a cup or a bowl. The fashioningbenevolence and righteousness out of man’s nature is likemaking cups and bowls from a willow tree.”

[2] Mencius replied, “Can you,in accordance with the nature of the willow tree, make cups and bowlsfrom it? You will do violence and injury to the tree before you can makecups and bowls from it. If you will do violence and injury to the willow tree in order to make cups and bowls,will you also do violence and injury to a man, to fashion benevolenceand righteousness [from him]? Your words, alas!would certainly with all men occasion calamity to benevolence andrighteousness.”

II. [1] Kaou-tsze said,“[Man’s] nature is likewater whirling round [in a corner]. Open a passagefor it on the east, and it will flow to the east; open a passage for iton the west, and it will flow to the west. Man’s nature isindifferent to good and evil, just as water is indifferent to the eastand west.”

[2] Menciusreplied, “Water indeed will flow indifferently to the east orwest, but will it flow indifferently up or down? The[tendency of] man’s nature to goodnessis like the [tendency of] water to flow downwards.There are none but have [this tendency to]goodness, [just as] water flows downwards.

3. “Now by strikingwater, and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead;and by damming and leading it, you may make it go up a hill; but are[such movements according to] the nature of water.It is the force applied which causes them. In the case of aman’s being made to do what is notgood, his nature is dealt with in this way.”

III. 1. Kaou-tsze said,“[The phænomena of] life iswhat I call nature.”

2. Mencius replied,“Do you say that life is nature just as you say that white iswhite?” “Yes,” was the reply.[Mencius asked again], “Is thewhiteness of a white feather like the whiteness of white snow, and thewhiteness of white snow like that of white jade?”“Yes,” returned [theother].

3. Mencius retorted,“Very well. Is the nature of a dog like the nature of an ox,and the nature of an ox like the nature of a man?”

IV. [1] Kaou-tsze said, “[To delight in] foodand in sexual pleasure is nature. Benevolence is from within, and notfrom without; righteousness is from without and not fromwithin.”

2. Mencius said,“What is the ground of your saying that benevolence is fromwithin, and righteousness fromwithout?” [The other] replied,“There is a man older than I, and I give honour to hisage;—it is not that there is in me a principle of reverencefor age. It is just as when there is a white man, and I consider himwhite;—according as he is so externally to me. It is on thisaccount that I say [of righteousness] that it isfrom without.”

3. [Mencius] said, “There is no differenceto us between the whiteness of a white horse, and the whiteness of awhite man, but I do not know that there is no difference between theregard with which we acknowledge the age of an old horse, and that withwhich we acknowledge the age of a man older [thanourselves]? And what is it which we call righteousness? Thefact of a man’s being older [than we]?or the fact of our giving honour to his age?”

[4] [Kaou] said,“There is my younger brother; I love him. But the youngerbrother of a man of Ts‘in I do not love; that is, it is[the relationship to] myself which occasions mycomplacency, and therefore I say that benevolence is from within. I givethe honour due to age to an old man of Ts‘oo, and to an oldman of my own [kindred]; that is, it is the agewhich occasions the complacency, and therefore I say that righteousnessis from without.”

[5] [Mencius] answered him, “Our enjoymentof meat broiled by a man of Ts‘in does not differ from ourenjoyment of meat broiled by [one of] our[own kindred]. Thus [what you insiston] takes place also in the case of[such] things; but is our enjoyment of broiledmeat also from without?”

[V] [1] MrMăng Ke asked the disciple Kung-too, saying, “On what ground is it said that righteousnessis from within?”

2. [Kung-too] replied, “It is the actingout of our feeling of respect, and therefore it is said to be fromwithin.”

[3] [Theother] said, “[In the caseof] a villager one year older than your elder brother, towhich of them will you show the [greater]respect?” “To my brother,” was thereply. “But for which would you pour out spiritsfirst?” [Kung-too] said,“For the villager.” [Măng Kethen argued], “Your feeling of respect rests onthe one, but your reverence for age is rendered to the other;[righteousness] is certainly determined by what iswithout, and not by internal feeling.”

[4] The disciple Kung-too was unableto reply, and reported [the conversation] toMencius, who said, “[You should askhim], ‘Which do you respect more, your uncle, oryour younger brother?’ He will reply, ‘Myuncle.’ [Ask him again], ‘Ifyour younger brother be personating a deceased ancestor, to whom willyou show respect more,—[to him or to youruncle]?’ He will say, ‘To my youngerbrother.’ [You can go on],‘But where is the [greater] respectdue, as you said, to your uncle?’ He will say,‘[I show it to my younger brother,]because he is in the position [of the deceasedancestor].’ And then you must say,‘Because he is in that position;—and so ordinarilymy respect is given to my elder brother, but a momentary respect isgiven to the villager.’ ”

[5] When Ke-tsze heard this, heobserved, “When respect is due tomy uncle, I give it to him; and when respect is due to my youngerbrother, I give it to him. The thing is certainly determined by what iswithout us, and does not come from within.” Kung-too replied,“In winter we drink things warm, but in summer we drinkthings cold; but is then our eating and drinking determined by what isexternal to us?”

VI. [1] Thedisciple Kung-too said, “Kaou-tsze says,‘[Man’s] nature is neithergood nor bad.’

[2] “Some say,‘[Man’s] nature may be madeto do good, and it may it may be made to do evil; and accordingly, underWăn and Woo, the people loved what was good, and under Yewand Le they loved what was cruel.’

[3] “Some say, ‘The natureof some is good, and the nature of others is bad. Hence it was thatunder such a ruler as Yaou, there yet appeared Sëang; thatwith such a father as Koo-sow, there yet appeared Shun; and that, withChow for their ruler and the son of their elder brother besides, thereyet appeared K‘e, the viscount of Wei, and princePe-kan.’

4. “And now you say,‘The nature is good.’ Then are all thosewrong?”

[5] Mencius replied, “From the feelings proper to it,[we see] that it is constituted for the doing ofwhat is good. This is what I mean in saying that [thenature] is good.

6. “If[men] do what is not good, the guilt cannot beimputed to their natural powers.

[7] “The feeling ofcompassionate distress belongs to all men; so does that of shame anddislike; and that of modesty and respect; and that of approving anddisapproving. The feeling of compassion and distress is the principle ofbenevolence; the feeling of shame and dislike is the principle ofrighteousness; the feeling of modesty and respect is the principle ofpropriety; and the feeling of approving and disapproving is theprinciple of knowledge. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, andknowledge are not fused into us from without; they naturally belong tous, and [a different view] is simply from want ofreflection. Hence it is said, ‘Seek, and you will find them;neglect, and you will lose them.’ [Men differ fromone another in regard to them]; some as much again as others,some five times as much, and some to an incalculable amount; it isbecause they cannot fully carry out their[natural] endowments.

[8] “It is said in the Book ofPoetry,

- ‘Heaven in giving birth to the multitudes of thepeople,

- To every faculty and relationship annexed its law:

- The people possess this normal nature,

- And they [consequently] love its normalvirtue.’

Confucius said, ‘The maker of this ode knew indeedthe constitution [of our nature].’ Wemay thus see that to every faculty and relationship there must belongits law, and that since the people possess this normal nature, theytherefore love its normal virtue.”

VII. [1] Mencius said, “In good years thechildren of the people are most of them good, and in bad years they aremost of them evil. It is not owing to their natural endowments conferred by Heaven, that they are thusdifferent. It is owing to the circumstances in which they allow theirminds to be ensnared and devoured that they appear so [as inthe latter case].

2. “There now isbarley.—Let the seed be sown and covered up; the ground beingthe same, and the time of sowing also the same, it grows luxuriantly,and when the full time is come, it is all found to be ripe. Althoughthere may be inequalities [of produce], that isowing to [the difference of] the soil as rich orpoor, to the [unequal] nourishment afforded byrain and dew, and to the different ways in which man has performed hisbusiness.

3. “Thus all thingswhich are the same in kind are like to one another;—whyshould we doubt in regard to man, as if he were a solitary exception tothis? The sage and we are the same in kind.

[4] “In accordance with this, Lung-tsze said, ‘If aman make hempen sandals, without knowing [the size ofpeople’s] feet, yet I know that he will not makethem like baskets.’ Sandals are like one another, because allmen’s feet are like one other.

[5] “So with the mouth and flavours;—all mouths havethe same relishes. Yih Ya [simply] appreciatedbefore me what my mouth relishes. Suppose that his mouth, in its relishfor flavours, were of a different nature from [the mouthsof] other men, in the same way as dogs and horses are not ofthe same kind with us, how should all men be found following Yih Ya intheir relishes? In the matter of tastes, the whole kingdom models itselfafter Yih Ya; that is, the mouths of all men are like one another.

[6] “So it is with the ear also. In the matter of sounds, the whole kingdom models itself afterthe musicmaster Kwang; that is, the ears of all men are like oneanother.

[7] “And so it is alsowith the eye. In the case of Tsze-too, there is no one under heaven butwould recognize that he was beautiful. Any one who did not recognize thebeauty of Tsze-too would [be said to] have noeyes.

8. “Therefore[I]say,—[Men’s] mouths agree inhaving the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying the same sounds;their eyes agree in recognizing the same beauty:—shall theirminds alone be without that which they similarly approve? What is itthen of which their minds similarly approve? It is the principles[of things], and the [consequentdeterminations of] righteousness. The sages only apprehendedbefore me that which I and other men agree in approving. Therefore theprinciples [of things] and [thedeterminations of] righteousness are agreeable to my mindjust as [the flesh] of grass and grain-fed[animals] is agreeable to mymouth.”

VIII. [1] Mencius said,“The trees of Nëw hill were once beautiful. Beingsituated, however, in the suburbs of [the capitalof] a large State, they were hewn down with axes and bills;and could they retain their beauty? Still through the growth from thevegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rainand dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing out. But thencame the cattle and goats, and browsed upon them. To these things isowing the bare and stript appearance [of thehill]; and when people see this, they think it was neverfinely wooded. But is this the nature of the hill?

2. “And so even ofwhat properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the mind[of any man] was without benevolence andrighteousness. The way in which a man loses the proper goodness of hismind is like the way in which [those] trees weredenuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it retain itsexcellence? But there is some growth of its life day and night, and inthe [calm] air of the morning, just between nightand day, the mind feels in a degree those desires and aversions whichare proper to humanity; but the feeling is not strong; and then it isfettered and destroyed by what the man does during the day. Thisfettering takes place again and again; the restorative influence of thenight is not sufficient to preserve [the propergoodness]; and when this proves insufficient for thatpurpose, the [nature] becomes not much differentfrom [that of] the irrational animals; and whenpeople see this, they think that it never had those endowments[which I assert]. But does this conditionrepresent the feelings proper to humanity?

3. “Therefore if itreceive its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow; ifit lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decayaway.

[4] “Confucius said, ‘Hold it fast, and it remainswith you; let it go, and you lose it. Its out-going and in-coming cannotbe defined as to time and place.’ It was the mental nature ofwhich this was said.”

IX. [1] Mencius said,“It is not to be wondered at that the king is not wise!

[2] “Suppose the case of the most easily growing thing in theworld;—if you let it have one day’s genial heat,and then expose it for ten days to cold, it will not be able to grow. Itis but seldom that I have an audience [of theking], and when I retire, there come[all] those who act upon him like the cold. ThoughI succeed in bringing out some buds of goodness, of what avail isit?

[3] “Now chess-playing is anart, though a small one; but without his whole mind being given, and hiswill bent to it, a man cannot succeed in it. ChessTs‘ëw is the best chess-player in all the kingdom.Suppose that he is teaching two men to play;—the one givesall his mind to the game, and bends to it all his will, doing nothingbut listen to Chess Ts‘ëw; the other, though he[seems to] be listening to him, has his whole mindrunning on a swan which he thinks is approaching, and wishes to bend hisbow, adjust the arrow to the string, and shoot it. Though the latter islearning along with the former, his progress is not equal to his. Is itbecause his intelligence is not equal? Not so.”

[X] [1] Mencius said,“I like fish, and I also like bears’ paws. If Icannot get both together, I will let the fish go, and take thebears’ paws. So I like life, and I also like righteousness.If I cannot keep the two together, I will let life go, and chooserighteousness.

2. “I like lifeindeed, but there is that which I like more than life; and therefore Iwill not seek to hold it by any improperways. I dislike death indeed, but there is that which I dislike morethan death, and therefore there are occasions when I will not avoidcalamity [that may occasion death].

3. “If among thethings which man likes there were nothing which he liked more than life,why should he not use all means by which he could preserve it? If amongthe things which man dislikes there were nothing which he disliked morethan death, why should he not do everything by which he could avoidcalamity [that might occasion it].

4. “[Butas man is], there are cases when by a certain course menmight preserve life, and yet they do not employ it; and when by certainthings they might avoid calamity [that will occasiondeath], and yet they will not do them.

[5] “Therefore men have thatwhich they like more than life, and that which they dislike more thandeath. They are not men of talents and virtue only who have this mentalnature. All men have it;—what belongs to such men is simplythat they are able not to lose it.

[6] “Here are a small basket of rice and a basin ofsoup;—and the case is one where the getting them willpreserve life, and the want of them will be death. If they are offeredto him in an insulting tone, [even] a tramper onthe road will not receive them, or if you first tread upon them,[even] a begger will not stoop to take them.

7. “[Andyet] a man will accept of ten thousand chung, without any question as to the propriety andrighteousness of his doing so. What can the ten thousand chung really add to him? [When he takesthem], is it not that he may get beautiful mansions? or thathe may secure the services of wives and concubines? or that the poor andneedy of his acquaintance may be helped by him?

8. “In the formercase, the [offered bounty] was not received, though it would have saved from death, andnow the man takes [the emolument] for the sake ofbeautiful mansions. [The bounty] that would havesaved from death was not received, and [theemolument] is taken to get the services of wives andconcubines. [The bounty] that would have savedfrom death was not received, and [the emolument]is taken that one’s poor and needy acquaintances may behelped by him. Was it not possible then to decline [theemolument] in these instances? This is a case of what iscalled—losing the proper nature of one’smind.”

XI. [1] Mencius said,“Benevolence is [the proper quality of]man’s mind, and righteousness is man’s[proper] path.

2. “How lamentable isit to neglect this path and not pursue it, to lose this mind and notknow to seek it [again].

3. “Whenmen’s fowls and dogs are lost, they know to seek them[again]; but they lose their mind, and do not knowto seek it [again].

[4] “The object of learning is nothing else but to seek for thelost mind.”

XII. [1] Mencius said, “Here is a manwhose fourth finger is bent, and cannot be stretched out straight. It isnot painful, nor does it incommode his business; but if there were anyone who could make it straight, he would not think it far to go all theway from Ts‘in to Ts‘oo [to findhim];—because his finger is not like those ofother people.

2. “When aman’s finger is not like other people’s, he knowsto feel dissatisfied; but when his mind is not like otherpeople’s, he does not know to feel dissatisfied. This is whatis called—ignorance of the relative [importance ofthings].”

XIII. Mencius said,“Anybody who wishes to cultivate a t‘ung tree, or a tsze, whichmay be grasped with the two hands, [perhaps] withone, knows by what means to nourish it; but in the case of their ownpersons men do not know by what means to nourish them. Is it to besupposed that their regard for their own persons is inferior to theirregard for a t‘ung or a tsze? Their want of reflection is extreme.”

XIV. [1] Mencius said,“Men love every part of their persons; and as they love everypart, so they [should]nourish every part. There is not an inch of skin which they do not love,and so there is not an inch of skin which they will not nourish. Forexamining whether his [way of nourishing] be goodor not, what other rule is there but simply this, that a man determine,[by reflecting] on himself, where it should beapplied?

[2] “Some parts of the body are noble, and some ignoble; somegreat, and some small. The great must not be injured for the small, northe noble for the ignoble. He who nourishes the little belonging to himis a small man; he who nourishes the great is a great man.

[3] “Here is aplantation-keeper, who neglects his woo and kea, and nourishes his small jujubetrees;—he is a poor plantation-keeper.

[4] “He who nourishesone of his fingers, neglecting his shoulders and back, without knowingthat he is doing so, is a man [who resembles] ahurried wolf.

5. “A man who[only] eats and drinks is counted mean by others;because he nourishes what is little to the neglect of what is great.

[6] “If a man,[fond of] eating and drinking, do[yet] not fail [in nourishing what inhim is great], how should his mouth and belly be accounted asno more than an inch of skin?”

XV. 1. The disciple Kung-too asked,saying, “All are equally men, but some are great men, andothers are little men; how is this?” Mencius replied,“Those who follow that part of themselves which is great aregreat men; those who follow that part which is little are littlemen.”

2. Kung-too pursued,“All are equally men; but some follow that part of themselveswhich is great, and some that which is little; how is this?”Mencius said, “The ears and the eyes have it not in theiroffice to think, and are [liable to be] obscuredby things [affecting them]; and when one thingcomes into contact with another, it simply leads it away. But it is inthe office of the mind to think. By thinking, it gets [theright view of things]; when neglecting to think, it fails todo this. These—[the senses and themind]—are what Heaven has given to us. Let a manfirst stand in [the supremacy of] the greater[and nobler] part of his constitution, and thesmaller part will not be able to take it from him. It is simply thiswhich makes the great man.”

XVI. [1] Mencius said, “Thereis a nobility of Heaven, and there is a nobility of man. Benevolence,righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity, with unwearied joy inthe goodness [of thesevirtues],—these constitute the nobility of Heaven.To be a duke, a minister, or a great officer,—thisconstitutes the nobility of man.

[2] “The men of antiquitycultivated their nobility of Heaven, and the nobility of man came in itstrain.

[3] “The men of thepresent day cultivate their nobility of Heaven in order to seek for thenobility of man, and when they have obtained this, they throw away theother; their delusion is extreme. The issue is simply this, that theymust lose [that nobility of man] aswell.”

XVII. 1. Mencius said, “Todesire to be what is considered honourable is the common mind of men.And all men have what is [truly] honourable inthemselves; only they do not think of it.

[2] “The honour which man confers is not the truly good honour.Those to whom Chaou-măng gave honourable rank he could makemean again.

[3] “It is said in the Book ofPoetry

- ‘You have made us to drink to the full of yourspirits;

- You have satiated us with your kindness;

meaning that [the guests] were filledwith benevolence and righteousness, and therefore did not wish for thefat meat and fine millet of men. When a good reputation and farreachingpraise fall to [a man’s] person, hedoes not desire the elegant embroidered garments of men.”

XVIII. [1] Mencius said,“Benevolence subdues its opposite just as water subdues fire.Those, however, who now-a-days practise benevolence [doit] as if with a cup of water they could save a wholewaggon-load of faggots which was on fire, and when the flames were notextinguished were to say that water cannot subdue fire. Such a course,moreover, is the greatest aid to what is not benevolent.

2. “The final issuewill simply be this, the loss [of that small amount ofbenevolence].”

XIX. Mencius said,“Of all seeds the best are the five kinds of grain, but ifthey are not ripe, they are not equal to the t‘e or the pae. So the valueof benevolence lies simply in its being brought tomaturity.”

XX. [1] Mencius said, “E, in teaching men to shoot, made it a rule todraw the bow to the full, and his pupils were required to do thesame.

2. “A master-workman,in teaching others, must use the compass and square, and his pupils mustdo the same.”

KAOU-TSZE. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] A man of Jin asked thedisciple Uh-loo, saying, “Is [an observanceof] the rules of propriety [in regard toeating] or the eating the more important?” Theanswer was, “[The observance of] therules of propriety is the more important.”

2. “Is[the gratifying] the appetite of sex or[the doing so only] according to the rules ofpropriety the more important?”

3. The answer[again] was, “[Theobservance of] the rules of propriety [in thematter] is the more important;” [andthen the man] said, “If the consequence of eating[only] according to the rules of propriety will bedeath from starvation, while by disregarding those rules one can getfood, must he still observe them [in such a case]?If, according to the rule that he shall go in person to meet his bride,a man cannot get married, while by disregarding the rule he can getmarried, must he still hold to the rule [in such acase]?”

4. Uh-loo was unable to reply[to these questions], and next day he went to Tsowand told them to Mencius, who said, “What difficulty is therein answering these inquiries?

5. “If you do notbring them together at the bottom, but only at their tops, a piece ofwood an inch square may be made to be higher than the pointed ridge of ahigh building.

6. “‘Metal is heavier than feathers;’—butdoes that saying have reference to a single clasp of metal and awaggonload of feathers?

[7] “If you take acase where the eating is all-important, and the observing the rules ofpropriety is of little importance, and compare them together, why merelysay that the eating is the more important? [So,]taking the case where the gratifying the appetite of sex isall-important, and the observing the rules of propriety is of littleimportance, why merely say that the gratifying the appetite is the moreimportant?

8. “Go and answer himthus: ‘If by twisting round your elder brother’sarm, and snatching from him what he is eating, you can get food foryourself, while, if you do not do so, you cannot get such food, will youso twist round his arm? And if by getting over yourneighbour’s wall, and dragging away his virgin daughter, youcan get a wife for yourself, while if you do not do so, you cannot getsuch wife, will you so drag her away?’ ”

II. [1] Këaou of Ts‘aouasked, saying, “[It is said,]‘All men may be Yaous and Shuns;’—is itso?” Mencius said, “It is.”

[2] [Këaou went on], “I haveheard that king Wăn was ten cubits high, and T‘angnine. Now I am nine cubits and four inches in height; but I can donothing but eat my millet. What am I to do to realize thatsaying?”

[3] The reply was,“What has the thing to do withthis,—[the question of size]? It alllies simply in acting as such. Here is a man whose strength was notequal to lift a duckling or a chicken,—he was[then] a man of no strength.[But] to-day he says, ‘I can lift threethousand catties;’ he is [now] a man ofstrength. And so, he who can lift the weight which Woo Hwoh lifted isjust another Woo Hwoh. Why should a man make a want of ability thesubject of his grief? It is only that he will not do the thing.

[4] “To walkslowly, keeping behind his elders, is to perform the part of a younger.To walk rapidly, going before his elders, is to violate the duty of ayounger. But is walking slowly what any man can not do? it is[only] what he does notdo. The course of Yaou and Shun was simply that of filial piety andfraternal duty.

[5] “Doyou wear the clothes of Yaou, repeat the words of Yaou, and do theactions of Yaou, and you will just be a Yaou. And if you wear theclothes of Këeh, repeat the words of Këeh, and dothe actions of Këeh, you will just be aKëeh.”

[6] [Këaou] said, “When I havean audience of the ruler of Tsow, I can ask him to let me have a houseto lodge in. I wish to remain here, and receive instruction at yourgate.”

7. [Mencius] replied, “The way[of truth] is like a great road; it is notdifficult to know it. The evil is only that men will not seek for it. Doyou go home, and seek it, and you will have abundance ofteachers.”

III. [1] Kung-sun Ch‘ow asked, saying, “Kaou-tsze says thatthe Seaou pwan is the ode of a smallman;—[is itso?]” Mencius replied, “Why does he sayso?” and [the disciple] said,“Because of the murmuring [which itexpresses].”

[2] [Mencius]answered, “How stupid is that old Kaou in dealing with theode! There is a man here, and a native of Yueh bends his bow to shoothim, while I will talk smilingly, and advise him [not to doso];—for no other reason but that he is notrelated to me. [But] if my own elder brother bebending his bow to shoot the man, then I will advise him [notto do so], weeping and crying the while;—for noother reason but that he is related to me. The dissatisfaction expressedin the Sëaou pwan is the working ofrelative affection; and that affection shows benevolence. Stupid indeedis that old Kaou’s criticism of the ode!”

[3] [Ch‘ow then] said, “How isit that there is no murmuring in the K‘aefung? ”

[4] [Mencius] replied, “Theparent’s fault referred to in the K‘ae fung was small, while that referred to in the Seaou pwan was great. Where theparent’s fault was great, not to have murmured at it wouldhave increased the alienation [between father andson]. Where the parent’s fault was small, to havemurmured at it would have been [like water which frets andfoams about a rock that stands in its channel], unable tosuffer the interruption to its course. To increase the want of naturalaffection would have been unfilial; to have refused to suffer such aninterruption [to the flow of natural affection]would also have been unfilial.

[5] “Confucius said,‘Shun was indeed perfectly filial!Even when fifty, he was full of longing desire for [theaffection of] his parents.’ ”

IV. [1] SungK‘ăng being on his way to Ts‘oo,Mencius met him in Shih-k‘ëw.

[2] “Where are you going,respected Sir?” said [Mencius].

[3] [K‘ăng] replied,“I have heard that Ts‘in and Ts‘oo arefighting together, and I am going to see the king of Ts‘oo,and advise him to cease hostilities. If he should not be pleased with myadvice, I will go and see the king of Ts‘in, and advise himin the same way. Of the two kings I shall [surely]find that I can succeed with one of them.”

4. [Mencius] said, “I will not presume toask the particulars, but I should like to hear the scope [ofyour plan]. What course will you take in advisingthem?” “I will tell them,” was thereply, “the unprofitableness [of theirstrife].” “Your aim, Sir,”rejoined [Mencius], “is great, but yourargument is not good.

5. “If you, respectedSir, starting from the point of profit, offer your counsels to the kingsof Ts‘in and Ts‘oo, and they, being pleased withthe consideration of profit, should stop the movements of their armies,then all belonging to those armies will rejoice in the cessation[of war], and find their pleasure in[the pursuit of] profit. Ministers will servetheir rulers for the profit of which they cherish the thought; sons willserve their fathers, and younger brotherswill serve their elder brothers, from the same consideration; and theissue will be that, abandoning benevolence and righteousness, ruler andminister, father and son, elder brother and younger, will carry on theirintercourse with this thought of profit cherished in their breasts. Butnever has there been such a state [of society]without ruin being the result of it.

6. “If you, Sir,starting from the ground of benevolence and righteousness, offer yourcounsels to the kings of Ts‘in and Ts‘oo, andthey, being pleased with benevolence and righteousness, should stop themovements of their armies, then all belonging to those armies willrejoice in the cessation [of war], and find theirpleasure in benevolence and righteousness. Ministers will serve theirrulers from the benevolence and righteousness of which they cherish thethought. Sons will serve their fathers, and younger brothers will servetheir elder brothers, from the same;—and the issue will bethat, abandoning [the thought of] profit, rulerand minister, father and son, elder brother and younger, will carry ontheir intercourse with benevolence and righteousness cherished in theirbreasts. But never has there been such a state [ofsociety] without the result of it being the attainment oftrue Royal sway. Why must you speak of profit?”

[V] [1] When Mencius was residing in Tsow,the younger brother of [the ruler of] Jin, who wasguardian of the State at the time, sent him a gift of[some] pieces of silk, which he received, without[going] to give thanks for it. When he was stayingfor a time in P‘ing-luh, Ch‘oo, who wasprime-minister [of Ts‘e], sent him[likewise] a gift of silks, which he received,without [going] to give thanks for it.

2. Subsequently, when he wentfrom Tsow to Jin, he visited the younger brother of the ruler, but whenhe went from P‘ing-luh to [the capitalof] Ts‘e, he did not visit the ministerCh‘oo. The disciple Uh-loo was glad, and said, “Ihave got an opportunity [to obtain someinformation].”

3. He asked accordingly,“Master, when you went to Jin, youvisited the ruler’s younger brother. But when you went to[the capital of] Ts‘e, you did notvisit the minister Ch‘oo; was it because he is[only] the minister?”

[4] [Mencius] replied, “No. It is said inthe Book of History, ‘In offerings, there are many ceremonialobservances. If the observances are not equal to the articles, it may besaid that there is no offering, there being no service of the will inthe offering.’

[5] “[Thisis] because the things [so presented]do not constitute an offering.”

[6] Uh-loo waspleased; and when some one asked him [what Menciusmeant], he said, “The younger brother[of the ruler of Jin] could not go to Tsow, butthe minister Ch‘oo could have gone toP‘ing-luh.”

VI. [1] Shun-yu K‘wăn, said, “He who makes thefame and real service his first object acts from a regard to others; hewho makes them only secondary objects acts from a regard to himself.You, Master, were ranked among the three high ministers of the kingdom,and before your fame and services had reached either to the ruler or thepeople, you went away. Is this indeed the way of thebenevolent?”

[2] Mencius replied,“There was Pih-e;—he abode in an inferiorposition, and would not with his virtue and talents serve a degenerateruler. There was E Yin;—he five times went toT‘ang, and five times went to Këeh. There was Hwuyof Lëw-hëa;—he did not disdain to servea vile ruler, nor did he decline a small office. The courses pursued bythose three worthies were different, but their aim was one. And what wastheir one aim? We must answer—benevolence. And so it issimply after this that superior men strive;—why must they[all] pursue the same[course]?”

[3] [K‘wăn] pursued,“In the time of duke Muh of Loo, the government was in thehands of Kung-e, while Tsze-lew and Tsze-sze were ministers.[And yet] the dismemberment of Loo increasedexceedingly. Such was the case,—a specimen of how your men oftalents and virtue are of no use to a State!”

[4] [Mencius] replied, “[Theduke of] Yu did not use Pih-le He, and[thereby] lost his State; duke Muh ofTs‘in used him, and became chief of all the princes. Theconsequence of not employing men of talents and virtue isruin;—how can it end in dismemberment[merely]?”

[5] [K‘wăn] urged[again], “Formerly, when Wang Paoudwelt on the K‘e, the people on the west of the Ho becameskilful at singing in his abrupt manner. When Meen K‘eu dweltin Kaou-t‘ang, the people in the west of Ts‘ebecame skilful at singing in his prolonged manner. The wives of Hwa Chowand K‘e Lëang bewailed their husbands so skilfully that they changed the manners ofthe State. When there is [the gift] within, it issure to manifest itself without. I have never seen the man who could dothe deeds [of a worthy] and did not realize thework of one. Therefore there are [now] no men oftalents and virtue; if there were, I should know them.”

[6] [Mencius]replied, “When Confucius was minister of crime in Loo,[the ruler] came not to follow [hiscounsels]. Soon after there was the[solstitial] sacrifice, and when a part of theflesh there presented did not come to him, he went away[even] without taking off his cap of ceremony.Those who did not know him supposed that [he wentaway] because the flesh [did not come tohim]. Those who knew him [somewhat]supposed that it was because of the neglect of the[usual] ceremony. The truth was that Confuciuswished to go on occasion of some small offence, and did not wish to gowithout an apparent cause. All men cannot be expected to understand theconduct of a superior man.”

VII. [1] Mencius said, “The fivepresidents of the princes were sinners against the three kings. Theprinces of the present day are sinners against the five presidents. The great officers of the present day aresinners against the princes of the present day.

[2] “When the sonof Heaven visited the princes, it was called ‘A tour ofinspection.’ When the princes attended at his court, it wascalled ‘A report of office.’ In the spring theyexamined the ploughing, and supplied any deficiency [ofseed]; in the autumn they examined the reaping, and assistedwhere there was a deficiency [of yield]. When[the son of Heaven] entered the boundaries[of a State], if [new]ground was being reclaimed, and the old fields were well cultivated; ifthe old were nourished, and honour shown to men of talents and virtue;and if men of distinguished ability were placed inoffice:—then [the ruler] wasrewarded,—rewarded with [an addition tohis] territory. [On the other hand], ifon his entering a State, the ground was found left wild or overrun withweeds; if the old were neglected, and no attention paid to men oftalents and virtue; and if hard tax-gatherers were placed inoffice:—then [the ruler] wasreprimanded. If [a prince] once omitted hisattendance at court, he was punished by degradation of rank; if he didso a second time, he was deprived of a portion of his territory; and ifhe did so a third time, the royal armies [were set inmotion], and he was removed [from hisgovernment]. Thus the son of Heaven commanded the punishment,but did not himself inflict it, while the various feudal princesinflicted the punishment, but did not command it. The five presidents,[however,] dragged the princes of the States toattack other princes, and therefore I say that they were sinners againstthe three kings.

[3] “Of the five presidents duke Hwanwas the most distinguished. At the assembly of the princes inK‘wei-k‘ew, they bound the victim, and placed thewriting [of the covenant] upon it, but did not[slay it], and smear their mouths with its blood. The first article in the covenantwas:—‘Slay the unfilial; do not change the son whohas been appointed heir; do not exalt a concubine to the rank ofwife.’ The second was:—‘Give honour tothe worthy, and cherish the talented,—to give distinction tothe virtuous.’ The thirdwas:—‘Reverence the old, and be kind to the young;be not forgetful of visitors and travellers.’ The fourthwas:—‘Let not offices be hereditary, nor letofficers be pluralists; in the selection of officers let the object beto get the proper men; let not [a ruler] take iton himself to put a great officer to death.’ The fifthwas:—‘Follow no crooked policy in makingembankments; do not restrict the sale of grain; do not grant anyinvestiture without [first] informing[the king, and getting his sanction].’It was [then] said, ‘All we who haveunited in this covenant shall hereafter maintain amicablerelations.’ The princes of the present day all violate thosefive prohibitions, and therefore I say that they are sinners against thefive presidents.

4. “The crime of himwho connives at and aids the wickedness of his ruler is small, but thecrime of him who anticipates and excites that wickedness is great. Thegreat officers of the present day all are guilty of this latter crime,and I say that they are sinners against the princes.”

VIII. [1] [The ruler of] Loo wanted to employ Shin-tsze inthe command of an army.

[2] Mencius said [toShin], “To employ an uninstructed people[in war] is what is called—destroyingthe people. A destroyer of the people was not tolerated in the age ofYaou and Shun.

[3] “Though by a single battle you should vanquishTs‘e, and so get possession of Nan-yang, the thing ought notto be done.”

[4] Shin changed countenance, was displeased,and said, “This is what I, Kuh-le, do notunderstand.”

5. [Mencius] said, “I will lay the caseplainly before you. The territory of the son of Heaven is a thousand le square;—without a thousand le, he would not have enough for his entertainmentof the princes. The territory of a prince [of the highestrank] is a hundred le square;—without a hundred le, he wouldnot have enough wherewith to observe the statutes kept in his ancestraltemple.

[6] “When theduke of Chow was invested with [the marquisate of]Loo, it was a hundred le square. The territory wasindeed enough, but it was limited to a hundred le. When T‘ae-kung was invested with [the marquisateof] Ts‘e, it was also a hundred le square;—sufficient indeed, but limited to thatamount.

7. “Now Loo is fivetimes a hundred le square. If a true king were to arise, whether do you think that Loowould be diminished or increased by him?

8. “If it were merelytaking from one [State] to give to another, abenevolent person would not do it; how much less would he do so, whenthe thing has to be sought by the slaughter of men!

9. “The way in whicha superior man serves his ruler is simply an earnest endeavour to leadhim in the right path, and to direct his mind tobenevolence.”

IX. [1] Mencius said,“Those who now-a-days serve their rulers, say, ‘Wecan for our ruler enlarge the limits of the cultivated ground, and fillhis treasuries and arsenals.’ Such men are now-a-days called‘Good ministers,’ but anciently they were called‘Robbers of the people.’ If a ruler is notfollowing the [right] path, nor has his mind benton benevolence, to seek to enrich him is to enrich aKëeh.”

2. “[Orthey will say], ‘We can for our ruler makeengagements with our allied States, so that our battles must besuccessful.’ Such men are now-a-days called ‘Goodministers,’ but anciently they were called‘Robbers of the people.’ If a ruler is notfollowing the [right] path, nor has his mind benton benevolence, to seek to make him stronger in battle is to help aKeeh.

3. “Although a[ruler], by the path of the present day, and withno change of its practices, were to have all under heaven given to him,he could not keep it for a single morning.”

[X] [1] PihKwei said, “I want to take [for thegovernment] only a twentieth[of the produce]; what do you say toit?”

[2] Mencius replied,“Your way, Sir, would be that of the Mih.

3. “In a State of tenthousand families, would it do to have [only] onepotter?” “No,” said the other;“the vessels would not be enow for use.”

4. [Mencius] went on, “In Mih[all] the five kinds of grain are notgrown;—it only produces the millet. There are no fortifiedcities with their walled suburbs, no great edifices, no ancestraltemples, no ceremonies of sacrifice; there are no feudal princesrequiring gifts of silk and entertainments; there is no system ofofficers with their various subordinates. On this account a tax of onetwentieth of the produce is [there]sufficient.

5. “But now,[as] we live in the middle States, how can such astate of things be thought of, which would do away with therelationships of men, and have no officers of superior rank?

6. “A State cannot bemade to subsist with but few potters; how much less can it be so withoutmen of a superior rank to others!

[7] “If we wishto make the taxation lighter than the system of Yaou and Shun, we shallhave a great Mih and a small Mih. If we wish to make it heavier, weshall have the great Këeh and the smallKëeh.”

XI. 1. Pih Kwei said,“My management of the waters is superior to that ofYu.”

2. Mencius said, “Youare wrong, Sir. Yu’s regulation of the waters was accordingto the laws of water.

3. “He therefore madethe four seas their receptacle, while you now, Sir, make theneighbouring States their receptacle.

4. “When waters flowout of their natural channels, we have what is called an inundation.Inundating waters form a vast [waste] of water,and are what a benevolent man detests. You are wrong, my goodSir.”

XII. Mencius said, “If a superior man have not confidence[in his views], how shall he take a firm hold[of things]?”

XIII. [1] [The ruler of] Loo wishing to commit theadministration of his government to the disciple Yoh-ching, Menciussaid, “When I heard of it, I was so glad that I could notsleep.”

[2] Kung-sunCh‘ow said, “Is Yoh-ching a man ofvigour?” “No.” “Is he wisein council?” “No.” “Is he aman of much information?” “No.”

3. “What then madeyou so glad that you could not sleep?”

[4] “He is aman who loves what is good,” was the reply.

5. “Is the love ofwhat is good sufficient?”

6. [Mencius] replied, “The love of what isgood is more than a sufficient qualification for the government of thewhole kingdom; how much more is it so for the State of Loo!

7. “If [aminister] love what is good, then all within the four seaswill think a thousand le but a small distance tocome and lay [their thoughts about] what is goodbefore him.

8. “If he do not lovewhat is good, men will say, ‘How self-conceited he looks![He is saying], “I know it.”’ The language and looks of that self-conceit will repel mento more than the distance of a thousand le. Whengood men stop more than a thousand le off,calumniators, flatterers, and sycophants will make their appearance.When [a minister] lives with calumniators,flatterers, and sycophants about him, though he may wish the State to bewell governed, is it possible for it to be so?”

XIV. [1] The disciple Ch‘in said,“What were the principles on which superior men of old tookoffice?” Mencius said, “There were three cases inwhich they accepted office, and three in which they left it.

[2] “Ifreceived with the utmost respect and all courteous observances, and theycould say [to themselves] that [theruler] would carry their words into practice, then they wentto him [and took office].[Afterwards], though there might be no remissionof the courteous observances, if their words were not carried intopractice, they left him.

3. “The second casewas that in which, though [the ruler] could not[be expected] at once to carry their words intopractice, yet being received by him with the utmost respect and all courteous observances, they went to him[and took office]. [Butafterwards], if there was a remission of the courteousobservances, they left him.

4. “The last case wasthat of [the superior man] who had nothing to eateither morning or evening, and was so famished that he could not moveout of his door. If the ruler, on hearing of his state, said,‘I must fail of the great point,—that of carryinghis principles into practice, and moreover I cannot follow his words,but I am ashamed to allow him to starve in my country,’ andso assisted him, the help might be accepted in such a case, but notbeyond what was sufficient to avert death.”

XV. [1] Menciussaid, “Shun rose [to the empire] fromamong the channeled fields. Foo Yueh was called to office from the midstof his [building] frames and[earth-] beaters; Kaou Kih from his fish and salt;Kwan E-woo from the hands of the officer in charge of him; Sun Shuh-gaoufrom [his hidingby] the sea-shore; and Pih-le He from the market-place.

2. “Thus, when Heavenis about to confer a great office on any one, it first exercises hismind with suffering, and his sinews and bones with toil; it exposes hisbody to hunger, and subjects him to extreme poverty; and it confoundshis undertakings. In all these ways it stimulates his mind, hardens hisnature, and supplies his incompetencies.

[3] “Men constantly err, butare afterwards able to reform. They are distressed in mind, andperplexed in thought, and then they arise to vigorous endeavour. Whenthings have been evidenced in men’s looks, and set forth intheir words, then they understand them.

[4] “If a ruler have not about his court families attached to thelaws and able officers, and if abroad there are no hostile States orother external calamities, the State will generally come to ruin.

5. “From such thingswe see how life springs from sorrow and calamity, and death from easeand pleasure.”

XVI. Mencius said, “There are manyarts in teaching. I refuse, as inconsistent with my character, to teacha man, but I am only thereby still teaching him.”

BOOK VII. [*]

TSIN SIN. PART I.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius said,“He who has exhaustively studied all his mental constitutionknows his nature. Knowing his nature, he knows Heaven.

[2] “To preserveone’s mental constitution, and nourish one’snature, is the way to serve Heaven.

[3] “When neither [the thought] ofpremature death nor[that] of long life causes a man anydouble-mindedness, but he waits in the cultivation of himself forwhichever issue,—this is the way in which he establishes his[Heaven-] ordained being.”

II. [1] Mencius said,“There is an appointment for everything. A man shouldsubmissively receive what is correctly ascribed thereto.

2. “Therefore, he whoknows what is [Heaven’s] appointmentwill not stand beneath a dangerous wall.

3. “Death sustainedin the fulfilment of one’s proper course may correctly beascribed to the appointment [of Heaven].

[4] “Death underhandcuffs and fetters cannot correctly be so ascribed.”

III. 1. Mencius said,“When we get by our seeking, and lose by our neglecting, inthat case seeking is of use to getting;—the things sought arethose which are in ourselves.

2. “When the seekingis according to the proper course, and the getting is[only] as appointed, in that case the seeking isof no use to getting;—the things sought are withoutourselves.”

IV. [1] Menciussaid, “All things are already complete in us.

[2] “There is no greater delight than to be conscious ofsincerity on self-examination.

[3] “If one acts with avigorous effort at the law of reciprocity,nothing, when he seeks for [the realization of]perfect virtue, can be closer than his approximation toit.”

[V] Mencius said, “They do thething, without clearly knowing [its propriety];they practise the doing, without discriminating [the reasonof it]; they [thus] pursue the path alltheir life, without knowing its nature:—this is the case ofmultitudes.”

VI. Mencius said, “Aman should not be without shame. When a man is ashamed of having beenwithout shame, he will [afterwards] not have[occasion for] shame.”

VII. 1. Mencius said,“The sense of shame is to a man of great importance.

[2] “Those who formcontrivances and versatile schemes distinguished for their artfulness donot allow their sense of shame to come into action.

[3] “When onediffers from other men in not having this sense of shame, what will hehave in common with them?”

VIII. Mencius said,“The able and virtuous monarchs of antiquity loved what wasgood and forgot [their own] power. And shall anexception be made of the able and virtuous scholars ofantiquity—that they did not act in a similar way? Theydelighted in their own principles, and forgot the power [ofprinces]. Therefore, if kings and dukes did not cherish theutmost respect [for them] and observe all forms ofceremony, they were not permitted to see them frequently. If they foundit not in their power to see them frequently, how much less could theyget to employ them as ministers!”

IX. [1] Mencius said, to SungKow-tsëen, “Are you fond, Sir, of travelling[to the different courts]? I will tell you about[such] travelling.

2. “If any[of the princes] acknowledge you [andfollow your counsels], look perfectly satisfied. If no one doso, still do the same.”

3. [Theother] asked, “What must I do that I may alwayswear this look of perfect satisfaction?” “Honourvirtue,” was the reply, “and delight inrighteousness; and so you may [always] appear tobe perfectly satisfied.

4. “So it is that ascholar, though he may be poor, does not let go his righteousness, and,though prosperous, does not leave [his own]path.

[5] “Poor and not letting go his righteousness;—it isthus that the scholar holds possession of himself. Prosperous, and not leaving [hisown] path;—it is thus that the expectations of thepeople [from him] are not disappointed.

6. “When the men ofantiquity realized their wishes, benefits accrued [fromthem] to the people. When they did not realize their wishes,they cultivated their personal character, and became illustrious in theworld. When poor, they attended to the improvement of themselves insolitude; when advanced to dignity, they promoted the improvement of allunder heaven as well.”

[X] Mencius said, “Themass of men wait for a king Wăn, and then receive a rousingimpulse. Scholars distinguished from the mass, even without a kingWăn, rouse themselves.”

XI. Mencius said, “Add to a man [the wealthof] the families of Han and Wei, and, if he[still] look upon himself without being elated, heis far beyond [the mass of] men.”

XII. Mencius said, “Let the people be employed in the way which isintended to secure their ease, and, though they be toiled, they will notmurmur. Let them be put to death in the way which is intended topreserve their lives, and, though they die, they will notmurmur.”

XIII. [1] Mencius said, “Under a presidentof the States, the people look brisk andcheerful; under a true king they have an air of deep contentment.

[2] “Though heslay them, they do not murmur; when he benefits them, they do not thinkof his merit. From day to day they make progress towards what is good,without knowing who makes them do so.

[3] “Wherever the superior man passes through, transformationfollows; wherever he abides, his influence is of a spiritual nature. Itflows abroad, above, and beneath like that of heaven and earth. How canit be said that he mends [society] but in a smallway?”

XIV. [1] Mencius said, “Kindly wordsdo not enter into men so deeply as a reputation for kindness.

[2] “Goodgovernment does not lay hold of the people so much as goodinstructions.

[3] “Good government isfeared by the people, [but] good instructions areloved by them. Good government gets the people’s wealth,[but] good instructions get theirhearts.”

XV. [1] Mencius said, “The abilitypossessed by men without having been acquired by learning is theirintuitive ability, and the knowledge possessed by them without theexercise of thought is their intuitive knowledge.

2. “Children carriedin the arms all know to love their parents; and when they are grown[a little], they all know to respect their elderbrothers.

[3] “Filial affectionfor parents is benevolence; respect for elders is righteousness. Thereis no other [cause for thesefeelings];—they belong to all underheaven.”

XVI. Mencius said,“When Shun was living amidst the deep retired mountains,dwelling with the trees and rocks, and wandering with the deer andswine, the difference between him and the rude inhabitants of thoseremote hills was very small. But when he heard a single good word, orsaw a single good action, he was like theKëang or the Ho, bursting its banks, and grandly flowing outin an irresistible flood.”

XVII. Mencius said, “Leta man not do what [his sense of righteousness tellshim] not to do, and let him not desire what [thesame sense tells him] not to desire:—to act thusis all that he has to do.”

XVIII. 1. Mencius said,“When men are possessed of intelligent virtue and prudence inthe management of affairs, it generally arises from their having been indistress.

2. “They are thefriendless minister and the despised concubine’s son who keeptheir hearts under a sense of peril, and use deep precautions againstcalamity. They become in consequence distinguished for theirintelligence.”

XIX. [1] Mencius said, “There arepersons who serve the ruler;—they serve the ruler, that is,for the sake of his countenance and favour.

[2] “There are ministers whoseek the safety of the altars;—they find their pleasure insecuring that tranquillity.

[3] “There are those who are the people ofHeaven;—[judging that], if they were inoffice, they could carry out [their principles]all under heaven, they proceed [so] to carry themout.

[4] “There are those who are greatmen;—they rectify themselves, and [all]things are rectified.”

XX. 1. Mencius said,“The superior man has three things in which he delights, andto be sovereign over all under heaven is not one of them.

2. “That his fatherand mother are both alive, and that his brothers afford no cause[for distress of mind];—this is hisfirst delight.

3. “That, whenlooking up, he has no occasion for shame before Heaven, and, below, hehas no occasion to blush before men;—this is his seconddelight.

4. “That he gets holdof the individuals of the most superior abilities in the kingdom, andteaches and nourishes them;—this is his third delight.

5. “The superior manhas three things in which he delights, and to be sovereign over allunder heaven is not one of them.”

XXI. [1] Mencius said,“Wide territory and a numerous people are desired by thesuperior man, but what he delights in is not here.

[2] “To stand in the centre of the kingdom and give tranquillityto the people within the four seas is an occasion of delight to thesuperior man; but [the highest element of] whatbelongs to him by his nature is not here.

[3] “What belongs to thesuperior man by his nature cannot be increased by the largeness of hissphere of action, nor diminished by his being in poverty andretirement;—for this reason, that it is determinatelyapportioned to him [by Heaven].

[4] “What belong tothe superior man are—benevolence, righteousness, propriety,and knowledge, rooted in his heart. Their growth and manifestation are amild harmony appearing in the countenance, a rich fulness in the back,and the character imparted to the four limbs. The four limbs understand[their several motions] without beingtold.”

XXII. [1] Mencius said, “Pih-e,that he might avoid [the tyrant] Chow, wasdwelling on the coast of the northern sea. When he heard of the rise ofking Wăn, he roused himself and said, ‘Why shouldI not attach myself to him? I have heard that the chief of the Westknows well how to nourish the old.’ T‘ae-kung,that he might avoid Chow, was dwelling on the coast of the eastern sea.When he heard of the rise of king Wăn, he roused himself, andsaid, ‘Why should I not attach myself to him? I have heardthat the chief of the West knows well how to nourish theold.’ If in the kingdom there were[now] a prince who knew well how to nourish theold, benevolent men would consider that he was the proper object forthem to gather to.

[2] “Around thehomestead with its five mow, the space at the footof the walls was planted with mulberry trees, with which the[farmer’s] wife nourished silkworms,and thus the old were able to have silk to wear. When the fivebrood-hens and the two brood-sows[of each family] were kept to their[breeding] seasons, the old were able to haveflesh to eat. The husbandmen cultivated their fields of a hundred mow, and their families of eight mouths weresecured against want.

[3] “The expression, ‘The chief of the West knows wellhow to nourish the old,’ referred to his regulations aboutthe fields and dwellings, his teaching [thefarmers] to plant [the mulberry tree],and nourish [those animals]; his instructing theirwives and children, so that they should nourish their aged. At fiftywarmth cannot be maintained without silks; and at seventy flesh isnecessary to satisfy the appetite. [The aged], notkept warm, nor well supplied with food, are said to be‘starved and famished,’ but among the people ofking Wăn there were no aged in thatcondition.—This was the meaning of thatexpression.”

XXIII. 1. Mencius said,“Let it be seen to that their fields of grain and flax arewell cultivated, and make the taxes on them light:—so thepeople may be made rich.

[2] “Let [the people] use their resourcesof food seasonably and expend them [only] on theprescribed ceremonies:—so they will be more than can beconsumed.

[3] “The people cannot live without water and fire; yet, if youknock at a man’s door in the dusk of the evening, and ask forwater and fire, there is no one who will not give them, such is thegreat abundance of them. A sage would govern the kingdom so as to causepulse and millet to be as abundant as fire and water. When pulse andmillet are as abundant as fire and water, how shall there be among thepeople any that are not virtuous?”

XXIV. [1] Mencius said,“Confucius ascended the eastern hill, and Loo appeared to himsmall. He ascended the T‘ae mountain, and all beneath theheavens appeared to him small. So, he who has contemplated the sea findsit difficult to think anything of other waters; and he who has been astudent in the gate of the sage finds it difficult to think anything ofthe words of others.

[2] “There is an art inthe contemplation of water;—it is necessary to contemplateits swelling waves. When the sun or the moon is at its brightest, itslight admitted [even] through an orifice is sureto illuminate.

[3] “Flowing water is a thing which does not proceed till it hasfilled the hollows [in its course]. The studentwho has set his mind on the doctrines [of thesage] does not come to the understanding of them but bycompleting one lesson after another.”

XXV. [1] Mencius said, “He who rises atcock-crow, and addresses himself earnestly to the practice of what isgood, is a disciple of Shun.

[2] “He who rises atcock-crow, and addresses himself earnestly to the pursuit of gain, is adisciple of Chih.

3. “If you want toknow what separated Shun from Chih it was nothing butthis,—the interval between [the thoughtof] gain and [the thought of]goodness.”

XXVI. [1] Mencius said, “Theprinciple of Yang-tsze was—‘Each one forhimself.’ Though by plucking out one hair he might havebenefited all under heaven, he would not have done it.

[2] “Mih-tsze lovesall equally. If, by rubbing [bare all his body]from the crown to the heel, he could have benefited all under heaven, hewould have done it.

[3] “Tsze-mohholds a medium [between these], and by holdingthat medium he is nearer the right. But by holding it without leavingroom for the exigency of circumstances, it becomes like their holdingtheir one point.

[4] “What I dislike in that holdingone point is the injury it does to the way[of right principle]. It takes up one point anddisregards a hundred others.”

XXVII. [1] Mencius said, “Thehungry think any food sweet, and the thirsty think the same of anydrink; and thus they do not know the right [taste]of what they eat and drink. The hunger and thirst, [infact,] injure [their palate]. And is itonly the mouth and belly that are injured by hunger and thirst?Men’s minds are also injured by them.

[2] “If a man can prevent the injurious evils of hunger andthirst from doing any injury to his mind, there need be no anxiety abouthis not being up with other men.”

XXVIII. Mencius said, “Hwuy ofLëw-hëa would not for the three highest offices atthe royal court have changed his guiding plan of life.”

XXIX. Mencius said, “A man withdefinite aims to be accomplished may be compared to one digging a well.To dig the well to a depth of seventy-two cubits, [andstop] without reaching the spring, is after all throwing awaythe well.”

XXX. [1] Mencius said,“[Benevolence and righteousness] werenatural to Yaou and Shun. T‘ang and Woo made them their own.The five presidents of the States feigned them.

[2] “Having borrowedthem long and not returned them, how could it be known that they did notown them?”

XXXI. [1] Kung-sun Ch‘ow said, “EYin said, ‘I cannot be near so disobedient aperson,’ and therewith he banished T‘ae-keah toT‘ung. The people were much pleased. WhenT‘ae-keah became virtuous, he then brought him back; and thepeople were much pleased.

2. “When worthies areministers, and their rulers are not virtuous, may they indeed banishthem in this way?”

[3] Mencius replied, “If they havethe mind of E Yin, they may. If they have not the mind, it would beusurpation.”

XXXII. Kung-sun Ch‘owsaid, “It is said in the Book of Poetry,

‘He would not eat the bread ofidleness!’

How is it that we see superior men eating withoutploughing?” Mencius replied, “When a superior manresides in any State, let its ruler employhis counsels, and he comes to tranquillity, wealth, honour, and glory.Let the young in it follow his instructions, and they become filial,obedient to their elders, true-hearted, and faithful. What greaterexample can there be than this of not eating the bread ofidleness?”

XXXIII. [1] The king’s son,Tëen, asked, saying, “What is the business of the[unemployed] scholar?”

2. Mencius replied,“To exalt his aim.”

[3] “What do you mean by exalting the aim?” asked[the other]. The answer was,“[Setting it] simply on benevolence andrighteousness. [The scholar thinks] how to put asingle innocent person to death is contrary to benevolence; how to takewhat one has not [a right to] is contrary torighteousness; that one’s dwelling-place should bebenevolence, and one’s path righteousness. When benevolenceis the dwelling-place [of the mind], andrighteousness the path [of the life], the businessof the great man is complete.”

XXXIV. Mencius said, “Supposing that thekingdom of Ts‘e were offered, contrary to righteousness, toChungtsze, he would not receive it; and allmen believe in him [as a man of the highestworth]. But this is [only] therighteousness which declines a small basket of rice and a dish of soup.A man can have no greater [crimes] than to disownhis parents and relatives, and [the relations of]ruler and minister, superiors and inferiors. How can it be allowed togive a man credit for the great [excellences]because he possesses a small one.”

XXXV. [1] T‘aou Yingasked, saying, “Shun being emperor, and Kaou Yaou chiefminister of justice, if Koo-sow had murdered a man, what would have beendone in the case?”

[2] Mencius said,“[Kaou Yaou] would simply haveapprehended him.”

3. “But would notShun have forbidden such a thing?”

[4] “Indeed,” wasthe reply, “how could Shun have forbidden it? [Theother] had received [the law] from aproper source.”

[5] “In that case what wouldShun have done?”

6. [Mencius] said, “Shun would haveregarded abandoning all under heaven as throwing away a worn-out sandal.He would privately have taken [his father] on hisback, and withdrawn into concealment, living somewhere on the sea-board.There he would have been all his life, cheerful and happy, forgettingthe empire.”

XXXVI. [1] Mencius, going from Fan to [the capital of] Ts‘e, saw the sons of the kingof Ts‘e at a distance, and said with a sigh,“One’s position alters the air, [justas] the nurture alters the body. Great is [theinfluence of] position! Are not [we]all men’s sons?”

[2] Mencius said, “Theresidences, the carriages and horses, and the dress of kings’sons, are mostly the same as those of other men. That theking’s sons look so is occasioned by theirposition,—how much more should [a peculiar airdistinguish] him whose position is in the wide house of thewhole world!

[3] “When the ruler ofLoo went to Sung, he called out at the Tëeh-chih gate, thewarder of which said, ‘This is not our ruler, but how like ishis voice to our ruler’s!’ This was occasioned bynothing but the correspondence of their positions.”

XXXVII. 1. Mencius said, “Tofeed [a scholar] and not love him is to treat himas a pig; to love him and not respect him is to keep him as a domesticanimal.

2. “Honouring andrespecting are what should exist before any offering of gifts.

3. “If there behonouring and respecting without [that] reality ofthem, a superior man cannot be retained by such empty[demonstrations].”

XXXVIII. Mencius said,“The bodily organs and themanifestations of sense belong to the heaven-conferred nature. But a manmust be a sage, and then he may satisfy [the designof] his bodily organization.”

XXXIX. [1] King Seuen of Ts‘ewanted to shorten the period of mourning. Kung-sun Ch‘owsaid, “To have a whole year’s mourning is betterthan doing away with it altogether.”

2. Mencius said,“That is just as if there were one twisting round the arm ofhis elder brother, and you were merely to say to him,‘Gently, gently, if you please.’ Your only courseshould be to teach him filial piety and fraternal duty.”

[3] [At thattime] the mother of one of the king’s sons haddied, and his tutor asked for him that he might be allowed somemonths’ mourning. Kung-sun Ch‘ow said,“What do you say to this?”

4. “This is acase,” was the reply, “where the party wishes tocomplete the whole period, but finds it impossible to do so; theaddition of a single day is better than not mourning at all. I spoke ofthe case where there was no hindrance and the thing was notdone.”

XL. [1] Menciussaid, “There are five ways by which the superior manteaches.

[2] “There are someon whom his transforming influence comes like seasonable rain.

[3] “There are somewhose virtue he perfects, and some to whose talents he gives theirdevelopment.

[4] “There are some whoseinquiries he answers.

[5] “There are some who privatelymake themselves good, and correct themselves [from hisexample and recorded lessons].

6. “These five arethe ways by which the superior man teaches.”

XLI. 1. Kung-sun Ch‘owsaid, “Lofty are your doctrines and admirable, but[to learn them] may well be likened to ascendingthe heavens;—they seem to be unattainable. Why not[adapt them] so as to make those[learners] consider them nearly within theirreach, and so daily exert themselves?”

[2] Mencius said,“A great artificer does not, for the sake of a stupidworkman, alter or do away with the marking-line. E did not, for the sakeof a stupid archer, change his rule for drawing the bow to the full.

[3] “The superior man draws the bow to the full, but does notdischarge the arrow;—in a way,[however,] which makesthe thing leap [before the learner].[So] does he stand in the middle of the rightpath;—those who are able follow him.”

XLII. 1. Mencius said,“When right ways prevail throughout the kingdom,one’s principles appear with one’s person. Whenright ways disappear from the kingdom, one’s person mustvanish along with one’s principles.

2. “I have not heardof one’s principles being dependent for their manifestationon other men.”

XLIII. [1] The disciple Kung-too said,“When Kăng of T‘ăng appearedat your gate, it seemed proper that a polite consideration should beshown to him, and yet you did not answer him;—why wasthat?”

[2] Menciusreplied, “I do not answer him who questions me presuming onhis ability, nor him who presumes on his talents and virtue, nor him whopresumes on his age, nor him who presumes on services performed to me,nor him who presumes on old acquaintance:—I answer in none ofthese cases. And Kăng of T‘ăng waschargeable with two of them.”

XLIV. 1. Mencius said, “Hewho stops short where stopping is not properwill stop short in everything. He who behaves shabbily to those whom heought to treat well will behave shabbily to all.

2. “He who advanceswith precipitation will retire with speed.”

XLV. Mencius said, “In regard to the[inferior] creatures, the superior man is loving,but does not show benevolence. In regard to people generally, heexercises benevolence but is not affectionate. He is affectionate to hisparents, and exercises benevolence to people generally. He exercisesbenevolence to people generally, and is loving to[inferior] creatures.”

XLVI. [1] Mencius said, “Thewise embrace all knowledge, but they are most earnest about what theyought to be most concerned about. The benevolent embrace all in theirlove, but to be earnest in cultivating an affection for the worthy iswhat most concerns them. [Even] the knowledge ofYaou and Shun did not extend to everything, but they were earnest aboutwhat first concerned them. The benevolence of Yaou and Shun did not showitself in [acts of] love to every man, but theywere earnest in cultivating an affection for the worthy.

[2] “Not to be able to keep thethree years’ mourning, and to be very particular about thatof three months, or that of five months; toeat immoderately and swill down the drink, and [at the sametime] to inquire about [the precept]not to tear off the flesh with the teeth;—such thingsillustrate what I say about not knowing what is most to be attendedto.”

TSIN SIN. PART II.

CHAPTER [I] [1] Mencius said,“Opposite indeed of benevolent was king Hwuy of Leang! Thebenevolent begin with what they [most] love, andproceed to what they do not [so naturally] love.Those who are not benevolent, beginning with what they do not[so naturally] love, proceed to what they[most] love.”

[2] Kung-sun Ch‘ow said,“What do you mean?” [Menciusreplied], “King Hwuy of Lëang, for thematter of territory, tore and destroyed his people by employing them infighting. Having sustained a great defeat, he wished to fight again;and, fearing lest the people should not be able to get the victory, heurged his son, a youth, whom he loved, [to take thecommand,] and sacrificed him with them. This is what Icall—beginning with what they do not [sonaturally] love, and proceeding to what they[most] love.”

II. [1] Mencius said, “Inthe ‘Spring and Autumn’ there are no righteouswars. Instances indeed there are of one war better than another.

[2] “ ‘Punitiveexpeditions’ are when the supreme authority smites itssubjects. Hostile States conduct no punitive expeditions against oneanother.”

III. [1] Mencius said, “It wouldbe better to be without the Book of History than to give entire creditto it.

[2] “In the ‘Successful Completion of theWar’ I select two or three passages only, [andrepose entire credit in them].

[3] “The benevolent man has noenemy under heaven. When [the prince] the mostbenevolent was attacking him who was the most the opposite, how couldthe blood have flowed till it floated the pestles of themortars?”

IV. [1] Mencius said,“There are some who say, ‘We are skilful atmarshalling troops; we are skilful at conducting battles.’They are great criminals.

[2] “If the ruler of a Statelove benevolence, he will have no adversary under heaven.

[3] “When [T‘ang] was conductinghis punitive expeditions in the south, the rude tribes on the northmurmured. When he was doing so in the east, the rude tribes on the westmurmured. Their cry was,—‘Why does he make uslast?’

[4] “When king Woo attacked Yin, hehad [only] three hundred chariots of war, andthree thousand guards.

[5] “The king said,‘Do not fear. Let me give you repose. I am no enemy to thepeople.’ [On this] they bowed theirheads to the ground, like the horns [of animals]falling off.

[6] “Thephrase ‘punitive expedition’ has in it the meaningof correction. Each [State] wishing to have itselfcorrected, what need is there for fighting?”

[V] Mencius said,“Cabinet-makers, builders, wheel-wrights, and carriage-builders can give to a man the compass andsquare, but they cannot make him skilful [in the use ofthem].”

VI. Mencius said,“Shun ate [his] parched grain, andpartook of [his] coarse herbs, as if he were to bedoing so all his life. When he became emperor, and had the embroideredrobes to wear, [his] lute to play on, and[Yaou’s] two daughters to wait on him,he was as if those things belonged to him as a matter ofcourse.”

VII. Mencius said,“From this time forth I know the heavy consequences ofkilling a man’s near relations. When a man killsanother’s father, that other will kill his father; when a mankills another’s elder brother, that other will kill his elderbrother. So he does not himself indeed do the act, but there is only a[small] interval [between him andit].”

VIII. [1] Mencius said, “Anciently,the establishment of frontier-gates was to guard against violence.

[2] “Now-a-days, it is toexercise violence.”

IX. Mencius said, “If a man donot himself walk in the right way, it will not be walked in[even] by his wife and children. If he orderothers but not according to the right way, he will not be able to getthe obedience [even] of his wife andchildren.”

[X] Mencius said, “A bad yearcannot prove the cause of death to him whose [storesof] what is needful are complete; an age of corruption cannotthrow him into disorder whose [equipment of]virtue is complete.”

XI. Mencius said, “A man wholoves fame may be able to decline a kingdom of a thousand chariots; butif he be not [really] the man [to dosuch a thing], it will appear in his countenance in thematter of a small basket of rice, or a dish of soup.”

XII. [1] Mencius said, “If the benevolent and worthy be not confidedin, a State will become empty and void.

2. “Without the rulesof propriety and distinctions of what is right, high and low will bethrown into confusion.

[3] “Without the various business of government, there will notbe resources sufficient for the expenditure.”

XIII. Mencius said,“There are instances of individuals without benevolence whohave got possession of a [single] State, but thereis no instance of the whole kingdom’s being got by onewithout benevolence.”

XIV. [1] Mencius said, “Thepeople are the most important element [in acountry]; the Spirits of the land and grain are the next; theruler is the lightest.

[2] “Therefore to gain thepeasantry is the way to become the son of Heaven; to gain the son ofHeaven is the way to become the prince of a State; to gain the prince ofa State is the way to become a great officer.

[3] “When the prince ofa State endangers the altars of the Spirits of the land and grain, he ischanged and another appointed [in his place].

[4] “When the sacrificial victimshave been perfect, the millet in its vessels all pure, and thesacrifices offered at their proper seasons, if there yet ensue droughtor inundations, then the altars of the Spirits of the land and grain arechanged, and others appointed.”

XV. Mencius said,“A sage is the teacher of a hundredgenerations;—this is true of Pih-e and Hwuy ofLëw-hëa. Therefore when men[now] hear the character of Pih-e, the corruptbecome pure, and the weak acquire determination. When they hear thecharacter of Hwuy of Lew-hea, the mean become generous, and theniggardly become liberal. [Those two] madethemselves distinguished a hundred generations back, and, a hundredgenerations after them, those who hear of them are all aroused[in this manner]. Could such effects be producedby them if they had not been sages? And how much more did they affectthose who were in contiguity with them and warned bythem!”

XVI. Menciussaid, “By benevolence is meant [the distinguishingcharacteristic of] man. When it is embodied inman’s conduct, we have what we call the path [ofduty].”

XVII. Mencius said,“When Confucius was about to leave Loo, he said,‘I will go by and by;’—it was rightthat he should leave the State of his parents in this way. When he was leaving Ts‘e, he took with hishands the water from the rice which was being washed in it, and wentaway [with the rice uncooked];—it wasright he should leave another State in this way.”

XVIII. Mencius said,“The reason why the superior man was reduced to straitsbetween Ch‘in and Ts‘ae was because none of therulers or of their ministers communicated with him.”

XIX. [1] MihK‘e said, “Greatly am I without anything to dependon from the mouths [of men].”

2. Mencius replied,“There is no harm in that. Scholars suffer more than othersfrom the mouths of people.

[3] “It is said inthe Book of Poetry,

- ‘My anxious heart is full of trouble;

- I am hated by the herd of mean people.’

[Such was the case of] Confucius. Andagain,

- ‘Though he could not prevent the rage [of hisfoes],

- He did not let fall his own fame.’

[Such was the case of] kingWăn.”

XX. Mencius said,“[Anciently], men of virtue and talentsby means of their own enlightenment made others enlightened. Now-a-days, [those who would bedeemed such, seek] by means of their own darkness to makeothers enlightened.”

XXI. Mencius said to Kaou-tsze,“There are the narrow foot-paths along thehills;—if suddenly they be used, they become roads, and if ina short space they are [again] disused, the wildgrass fills them up. Now the wild grass is filling up your mind,Sir.”

XXII. 1. Kaou-tsze said,“The music of Yu was better than that of kingWăn.”

2. Mencius asked, “Onwhat ground do you say so?” and the other replied,“Because the knob of [Yu’s]bells is nearly worn through.”

3. Mencius rejoined,“How can that be a sufficient proof? Have the ruts at acity-gate been made [merely] by the two-horsedcarriage?”

XXIII. [1] Therewas a famine in Ts‘e, and Ch‘in Tsin said[to Mencius], “The people are allthinking that you, Master, will again obtain for them the opening of[the granary of] T‘ang, but I apprehendyou will not do so a second time.”

[2] [Mencius]replied, “To do so would be to act like Fung Foo. There was aman of that name in Tsin, distinguished for his skill in seizing tigers.He afterwards became a scholar of reputation, and going once into thewild country, he found a crowd in pursuit of a tiger. The tiger tookrefuge in a corner of a hill, where no one dared to attack him; but whenthe people descried Fung Foo, they ran and met him. He[immediately] bared his arms, and descended fromhis carriage. The multitude were pleased with him, but those who werescholars laughed at him.”

XXIV. [1] Mencius said, “For themouth to desire tastes, the eye colours, the ear sounds, the noseodours, and the four limbs ease and rest;—these things arenatural. But there is the appointment [of Heaven in connexionwith them]; and the superior man does not say [inhis pursuit of them], ‘It is mynature.’

[2] “[The exercise of] love between fatherand son, [the observance of] righteousness betweenruler and minister, the rules of ceremony between guest and host,[the display of] knowledge in[recognizing] the able and virtuous, and the[fulfilling the whole] heavenly course by thesage:—these are appointed [by Heaven and may berealized in different degrees]. But there is [anadaptation of our] nature [for them],and the superior man does not say [in reference tothem], ‘There is a[limiting] appointment [ofHeaven].’ ”

XXV. [1] Haou-săng Puh-hae asked, saying, “What sort of manis Yoh-ching?” Mencius replied, “He is a good man,a real man.”

2. “What do you meanby ‘A good man?’ What do you mean by ‘Areal man?’ ”

[3] Thereply was, “A man who commands our liking is what is called good.

4. “He whose[goodness] is part of himself is what is called a real man.

5. “He whose[goodness] is accumulated in full measure is whatis called a beautiful man.

6. “He whosecompleted [goodness] is brightly displayed is whatis called a great man.

7. “When this greatman exercises a transforming influence, he is what is called a sage.

[8] “When the sage isbeyond our knowledge, he is what is called aspirit-man.

9. “Yoh-ching isbetween the [first] two characters, and below the[last] four.”

XXVI. [1] Mencius said,“Those who are fleeing from [the errorsof] Mih naturally turn to Yang, and those who are fleeingfrom [the errors of] Yang naturally turn toorthodoxy. When they so turn, they should at once and simply bereceived.

[2] “Those who now-a-days dispute with [those who hadbeen] Yangists and Mihists, do so as if they had beenpursuing a stray pig, the leg of which, after they have got it to enterthe pen, they proceed to tie.”

XXVII. Mencius said, “There are theexactions of hempen cloth and silken thread, of grain, and of personalservice. The wise ruler requires but one ofthese [at once], deferring the other two. If herequire two of them [at once], then the people dieof hunger. If he require the three [at once], thenfathers and sons are separated.”

XXVIII. Menciussaid, “The precious things of the prince of a State arethree;—the territory, the people, and the business of thegovernment. If a prince value as most precious pearls and gems, calamityis sure to befall him.”

XXIX. P‘wan-shing Kwoh havingobtained an official situation in Ts‘e, Mencius said,“He is a dead man,—P‘wan-shingKwoh!” P‘wan-shing Kwoh having been put to death,the disciples asked, saying, “How did you know, Master, thathe would be put to death?” Mencius replied, “Hewas a man who had a little ability, but he had not learned the greatprinciples of the superior man. He was just qualified to bring deathupon himself, but for nothing more.”

XXX. 1. When Mencius went toTăng, he was lodged in the upper palace. A sandal in theprocess of making had been placed there in awindow, and when the keeper of the place [came to]look for it, he could not find it.

2. [Onthis], some one asked [Mencius] aboutthe matter, saying, “Is it thus that your followerspilfer?” “Do you think, Sir,” was thereply, “that they came here for the purpose of pilfering thesandal?” The man said, “I apprehend not. But you,Master, having arranged to give lessons, do not go back to inquire intothe past, and you do not reject those who come to you. If they come withthe mind [to learn], you at once receive themwithout any more ado.”

XXXI. [1] Mencius said, “Allmen have some things which they cannot bear [tosee];—extend that feeling to what they can bear,and the result will be benevolence. All men have some things which theywill not do;—extend that feeling to the things which they do,and righteousness will be the result.

2. “If a man can givefull development to the feeling which makes him shrink from injuringothers, his benevolence will be more than can be put into practice. Ifhe can give full development to the feeling which refuses to dig throughor jump over [a wall, for a bad purpose], hisrighteousness will be more than can be put into practice.

[3] “If a mancan give full development to the real feeling [ofdislike] with which he receives [the salutationof] ‘Thou,’‘Thou,’ he will act righteously in all places andcircumstances.

4. “When a scholarspeaks what he ought not to speak, by his speaking seeking to gain someend, and when he does not speak what he ought to speak, by his silenceseeking to gain the same end;—both these cases are of a piecewith digging through or jumping over a wall.”

XXXII. [1] Mencius said,“Words which are plain and simple, while their scope isfar-reaching, are good words. Principles which, as held, arecompendious, while their application is extensive, are good principles.The words of the superior man do not go below the girdle, but[great] principles are contained in them.

[2] “Theprinciple which the superior man holds is that of personal cultivation,but all under heaven is thereby tranquillized.

3. “The disease ofmen is this:—that they neglect their own fields and go toweed the fields of others, and that what they require from others isgreat, while what they lay upon themselves is light.”

XXXIII. [1] Mencius said, “Yaou andShun were what they were by nature; T‘ang and Woo were so byreturning to [their natural virtues].

[2] “When all the movements in the countenance and every turn[of the body], are exactly according to propriety,that shows the greatest degree ofcomplete virtue. Weeping for the dead [should be]the expression of [real] sorrow, and not as the[proper affection] of the living. The regular pathof virtue [is to be pursued] without any bend,from no view to emolument. Words should be in themselves sincere, notwith a desire to make one’s conduct [appear tobe] correct.

[3] “Thesuperior man obeys the law [of right], and waitssimply for what is appointed.”

XXXIV. [1] Mencius said, “Those who give counsel to great men shoulddespise them, and not look at their pomp and display.

[2] “Halls several timeseight cubits high, with beams projecting at the eaves severalcubits;—these, if I could realize my wishes, I would nothave. Food spread before me over ten cubits square, and attendant girlsto the number of several hundred;—these, if I could realizemy wishes, I would not have. Pleasure and drinking, and the dash ofhunting, with a thousand chariots following after me;—these,if I could realize my wishes, I would not have. What they esteem arewhat I would have nothing to do with; what I esteem are the rules of theancients.—Why should I stand in awe of them?”

XXXV. Mencius said, “Fornourishing the mind there is nothing better than to make the desiresfew. Here is a man whose desires are few:—there may be some[right qualities] notkept in his heart, but they will be few. Here is a man whose desires aremany;—there may be some [rightqualities] kept in his heart, but they will befew.”

XXXVI. [1] Mencius said,“Tsăng Seih was fond of sheep-dates, and[his son] Tsăng-tsze could not bear toeat them.”

[2] Kung-sunCh‘ow asked, saying, “Which isbetter,—minced meat and roasted meat, orsheep-dates?” Mencius said, “Mince and roast-meatto be sure!” Kung-sun Ch‘ow went on,“Then why did Tsăng-tsze eat mince and roast-meat,while he would not eat sheep-dates?” “For minceand roast-meat,” was the reply, “there is a commonliking, while that for sheep-dates was peculiar. We avoid the name, butdo not avoid the surname. The surname is common, but the name ispeculiar.”

XXXVII. [1] Wan Chang asked,saying, “Confucius, when he was in Ch‘in, said,‘Why not return? The scholars of my school are ardent andhasty. They advance and seize [their object], butdo not forget their early ways.’ When Confucius was inCh‘in, why did he think of the ambitious scholars ofLoo?”

[2] Menciusreplied, “Confucius, not getting men who would pursue the due medium, felt that he must take theardent and cautiously-decided. The ardent would advance and seize[their object]; the cautiously-decided would keepthemselves from certain things. It is not to be thought that Confuciusdid not wish for men pursuing the due medium, but being unable to assurehimself of finding such, he therefore thought of the nextclass.”

3. “I venture toask,” [said Ch‘ow,]“what sort of men they were who could be called‘the ardent?’ ”

[4] “Such,” wasthe reply, “as K‘in Chang, Tsăng Seih,and Muh P‘ei were those whom Confucius styled ‘theardent.’ ”

5. “Why are theystyled ‘the ardent?’ ”

6. [Mencius] said, “Their aim led them totalk magniloquently, saying, ‘The ancients! Theancients!’ But their actions, compared with [theirwords], did not come up to them.

7. “When he foundthat neither could he get those who were [thus]ardent, he wished to get scholars who would consider anything impure asbeneath them, and to communicate [hisinstructions] to them. These were thecautiously-decided,—a class next to theother.”

[8] [Chang pursued hisquestioning], “Confucius said, ‘Theyare only the good careful people of the villages at whom I feel noindignation when they pass my door without entering my house. Your goodcareful people of the villages are the thieves of virtue.’What sort of people were they who could be styled ‘the goodcareful people of the villages?’ ”

[9] [Mencius replied], “They say[of the ardent], ‘Why are they somagniloquent? Their words have not respect to their actions, nor theiractions to their words, and then they say, “The ancients! Theancients!” [And] why dothese—[thecautiously-decided]—act so peculiarly, and carrythemselves so cold and distant? Born in this age, we should be of thisage;—to be [deemed] good is all that isneeded.’ Eunuch-like flatteringtheir generation,—such are your good careful men of thevillages.”

10. Wan Chang said,“Their whole village styles those men good and careful. Inall their conduct they are so. Why was it that Confucius considered themto be the thieves of virtue?”

11. [Mencius] replied, “If you would blamethem, you find nothing to allege. If you would criticize them, you havenothing to criticize. They agree with the current customs; they are atone with an impure age. Their principles have a semblance ofright-heartedness and truth; their conduct has a semblance ofdisinterestedness and purity. All men are pleased with them, and theythink themselves right, so that it is impossible to proceed with them tothe principles of Yaou and Shun. On this account they are called‘the thieves of virtue.’

[12] “Confucius said,‘I hate a semblance which is not the reality. I hate the yew -weed, lest it be confounded with the growingcorn. I hate glib-tonguedness, lest it be confounded with righteousness.I hate sharpness of tongue, lest it be confounded with sincerity. I hatethe notes of Ch‘ing, lest they be confounded with[true] music. I hate the reddish-blue, lest it beconfounded with vermilion. I hate your good careful men of the villages,lest they be confounded with the [truly]virtuous.’

13. “The superior manwould simply bring back the unchanging standard [of truth andduty]. That being rectified, the masses of the people areroused [to virtue]. When they are so aroused,forthwith perversities and glossed wickedness disappear.”

XXXVIII. [1] Mencius said, “From Yaou and Shun down to T‘angwere five hundred years and more. As to Yu and Kaou Yaou, they saw[those earliest sages], and[so] knew[their doctrines], while T‘ang heardthose doctrines [as transmitted], and[so] knew them.

[2] “FromT‘ang to king Wăn were five hundred years andmore. As to E Yin and Lae Choo, they saw[T‘ang], and [so]knew [his doctrines], while king Wănheard them [as transmitted], and so knew them.

[3] “From king Wănto Confucius were five hundred years and more. As toT‘ae-kung Wang and San E-săng, they saw[Wăn], and [so]knew his doctrines, while Confucius heard them [astransmitted], and [so] knew them.

[4] “From Confucius to nowthere are [only] a hundred years and[somewhat] more;—so far from beingremote is the distance from the sage in point of time, and so very nearat hand was the sage’s residence. In these circumstances, isthere no one [to transmit his doctrines]? Yea, isthere no one [to do so]?”

JOHN CHILDS AND SON, PRINTERS

1

See Vol. I., Proleg., pp.4, 5.

1

See his great work, Bk clxxxiv., uponMencius.

1

See the same work, Bk clxxiv. pp. 9,10.

1

In the “Books of the Suydynasty” ( AD 589—617), Bk xxxix., we find that there were then inthe national Repositories three Works onMencius,—Chaou K‘e’s, one byCh‘ing Heuen, and one by Lëw He also ascholar of Han, but probably not earlier than ChaouK‘e. The same Works were existing under theT‘ang dynasty (624—907);—seethe “Books of T‘ang,” Bk. xlix.By the rise of the Sung dynasty ( AD 975), however, the two last were both lost. The entries in theRecords of Suy and T‘ang would seem to prove thatCh‘ing Heuen had written on Mencius, but in thesketches of his life which I have consulted,—and thatin the “Books of the After Han dynasty”must be the basis of all the rest,—there is nomention made of his having done so.

1

It was to mount Ke that two ancient worthies are saidto have withdrawn, when Yaou wished to promote them tohonour.

2

These are the well-known EYin and T‘ae-kung Wang, ancestor of the lords ofTs‘e.

1

See Vol. I., Proleg., p. 21.

1

See Vol. I., Proleg., larger Work, p. 132.

2

Mencius, VII. Pt II. iii.

3

This is the language of ChaouK‘e.

1

See Vol. I., Proleg., larger Work, p. 132.

1

The name and the account I take from the“Supplemental Observations on the FourBooks,” Art. I. on Mencius. Chih, I apprehend, is amisprint for Che, the individual referred to being probablyCh‘in Foo-lëang, a great scholar andofficer of the 12th century, known also by the designations ofKeun-keu and Che-chae.

2

This eulogy of Han Yu isto be found subjoined to the brief introduction in the commoneditions of Mencius. The whole of the passage there quotedis:—“Yaou handed [the scheme ofdoctrine] down to Shun: Shun handed it to Yu; Yu toT‘ang; T‘ang to Wăn, Woo, andthe Duke of Chow; Wăn, Woo, and the Duke of Chow toConfucius; and Confucius to Mencius, on whose death there was nofarther transmission of it. In Seun and Yang there are snatchesof it, but without a nice discrimination: they talk about it,but without a definite particularity.”

1

The three attemptsare—one by the author of “SupplementalObservations on the Four Books,” an outline of whichis given in his Notes on Mencius, Art. III.; one by the authorof the “Topography of the Four Books,” andforming the 24th section of the “Explanations of theClassics under the Ts‘ing dynasty;” andone prefixed to the Works of Mencius, in “The FourBooks, with the Relish of the Radical Meaning” (Vol.I., Proleg., larger Work, p. 131). These three critics displaymuch ingenuity and research, but their conclusions areconflicting.—I may be pardoned in saying that thenlearned labours have affected me just as those of theHarmonizers of the Gospel Narratives used to do in formeryears,—bewildering more than edifying. Most cordiallydo I agree with Dean Alford (New Testament, Vol. I., Proleg., I.vii. 5):—“If (? since) the Evangelistshave delivered to us truly and faithfully the ApostolicNarratives, and if (? since) the Apostles spoke as the HolySpirit enabled them, and brought events and sayings to theirrecollection, then we may be sure that, if weknew the real process of the transactions themselves, thatknowledge would enable us to give an account of thediversities of narration and arrangement which the Gospelsnow present to us. But without suchknowledge, all attempts to accomplish this analysis inminute detail must be merely conjectural, and must tend to weaken the Evangelic testimony rather than tostrengthen it.”

1

Yen Joh-keu and Ts‘aou Che-shing stoutlymaintain the different sides of this question, the latter givingfive arguments to show that the Tsow of Mencius was the Tsow ofLoo. As Mencius went from Ts‘e on the death of hismother to bury her in Loo (Bk II. Pt II. vii.), this appears toprove that he was a native of that State. But the conclusion isnot necessary. Loo was the ancestral State of his family, and onthat account he might wish to inter his parent there, accordingto the custom of the Chow dynasty (see the Le Ke, Bk II. Pt I.i. 26). The way in which Tsow always appears as the residence ofMencius, when he is what we should say “athome,” appears to me decisive of the question, thoughneither of the disputants presses it into his service. CompareBk III. Pt I. ii.; Bk VI. Pt II. i. and v. The point is reallyof no importance, for the States of Tsow and Loo adjoined.“The rattle of the watchman in the one was heard inthe other.”

2

The legend writers aremore precise, and say that Mencius was only three years old whenhis father died. This statement, and K‘e’sas well, are difficult to reconcile with what we read in Bk I.Pt II. xvi., about the style in which Mencius buried hisparents. If we accept the legend, we are reduced there to greatstraits.

1

See Choo He’s“Education for the Young,” at thecommencement of the chapter on“Instruction,” which begins with theeducational duties of the mother, while the child is yetunborn.

1

See Book IV. Pt II. xxii.

1

Bk III. Pt II.ii.

2

Bk I. Pt II. iv. 6.

1

Bk VI. Pt II. vii. 1, 4.

2

Book III. Pt II. ix. 9.

3

In the “Annalsof the Empire” (Vol. I., Proleg., larger Work, p.134), Mencius’ visit to king Hwuy of Lëangis set down as having occurred in BC 335, and under BC 318 it issaid—“Mencius goes from Leang toTs‘e.” The visit to Lëang isplaced too early, and that to Ts‘e too late. Thedisasters of king Hwuy, mentioned Bk I. Pt I. v. 1, had not alltaken place in BC 318, and if Menciusremained 17 years in Leang, it is strange we have only fiveconversations between him and king Hwuy. So far from his notgoing to Ts‘e till BC 318,it will be seen from the next note that he was leavingTs‘e before BC 323.

4

Mencius’ wordsare—“From the commencement of the Chowdynasty till now more than 700 years have elapsed.”It was to the purpose of his argument to make the time appear aslong as possible. Had 800 years elapsed, he would surely havesaid so. But as the Chow dynasty commenced in BC 1121, the year BC 322 would be its 800th anniversary, and Mencius’departure from Ts‘e did not take place later that theyear before BC 323.

1

This chapter and the onebefore it have very much the appearance of having taken place onthe way from Tsow to Ts‘e. Mencius has been invitedto a powerful court. He is emerging from his obscurity. Hisdisciples expect great things for him. Kung-sun Ch‘owsees him invested with the government of Ts‘e, and inthe elation of his heart makes his inquiries.

2

Bk IV. Pt II.xxxii.

3

Bk II. Pt II. xiv.

1

Bk VI. Pt II. v.

2

Bk I. Pt I. vii.

3

I judge that this was the first set conversation between king Seuen and Mencius,because of the inquiry with which the king opensit,—“May I be informed by you of thetransactions of Hwan of Ts‘e, and Wăn ofTsin?” A very brief acquaintance with our philosopherwould have taught him that he was the last person to apply toabout those characters.

4

Bk I. Pt II. i. iii. v.; etal.

1

Bk II. Pt II. ii.

2

Bk II. Pt II. x. Iconsider that this chapter, and others here referred to, belongto Mencius’ first departure from Ts‘e. Ido so because we can hardly suppose that the king and hisofficers would not have understood him better by the end of hissecond residence. Moreover, while Mencius retires, his languagein x. 2 and xi. 5, 6 is of such a nature that it leaves anopening for him to return again.

1

Bk II. Pt II. xii.

2

This is gathered from BkIII. Pt I. i. 1, where the crown-prince ofT‘ăng visits Mencius, and from Bk II. PtII. iii., where his accepting a gift in Sung appears to havebeen subsequent to his refusing one inTs‘e.

1

Bk II. Pt II. iii.

2

Bk III. Pt I. ii. The noteof time which is relied on as enabling us to follow Mencius hereis the intimation, Bk I. Pt II. xiv., that“Ts‘e was about to fortitySeeh.” This is referred to BC 320, when king Seuen appointed his brotherT‘ëen Ying over the dependency of Seeh,and took measures to fortify it.

1

Bk III. Pt I. iii.

2

Bk I. Pt II. xiii. xiv. xv.

3

Confucian Analects XIII.x.

4

Bk II. Pt I. i.13.

1

There are variousdifficulties about the reign of king Hwuy of Lëang.Sze-ma Ts‘een makes it commence in 369 and terminatein 334. He is then succeeded by Seang whose reign ends in 318;and he is followed by Gae till 295. What are called“The Bamboo Books” extendHwuy’s reign to BC 318, andthe next 20 years are assigned to king Gae. “TheAnnals of the Empire” (which are compiled from“The General Mirror of History”) followthe Bamboo Books in the length of king Hwuy’s reign,but make him followed by Sëang: and take no note of aking Gae.—From Mencius we may be assured that Hwuywas succeeded by Sëang, and the view of his Life,which I have followed in this sketch, leads to the longer periodassigned to his reign.

1

Bk 1. Pt I. vi.

2

This conclusion is adopted because it was in 311 thatYen rebelled, when the king said that he was very much ashamedwhen he thought of Mencius, who had strongly condemned hispolicy towards the State of Yen.—This is another casein which the chronology is differently laid down by theauthorities, Sze-ma Ts‘een saying that Yen was takenby king Min the son and successor of Seuen.

1

Bk IV. Pt II. xxvii.

2

Bk II. Pt II. v.

1

Bk III. Pt I. v.2.

2

Bk II. Pt II. vii.

3

Bk I. Pt II.xvi.

4

Some are of opinion that Mencius stopped all theperiod of mourning in Loo, but the more natural conclusion, BkII. Pt II. vii. 1, seems to me that he returned toTs‘e, and stayed at Ying, without going tocourt.

5

Bk II. Pt II.viii.

1

Bk VII. Pt II. ii.

2

Bk II. Pt I.v.

3

Bk I. Pt II. x.

4

Bk I. Pt II. xi.

1

See Bk III. Pt II. v. vi.

2

Bk VI. Pt II.xiii.

3

Bk IV. Pt I.xxv.

4

Bk VII. Pt II. xxv.

5

Bk VI. Pt II. xiii.

1

Bk I. Pt II. xvi.

2

Bk III. Pt II. xiv.

1

See Morrison’sDictionary, on Mencius.

1

AD 1068—1085.

2

AD 1330—1333.

3

Bk IV. Pt II. iii.

1

I have taken this accountfrom “The Sacrificial Canon of the Sage’sTemples” (Vol. I. Proleg. p. 103). Dr. Morrison inhis Dictionary, under the character Măng, adds thatthe change in the emperor’s mind was produced by hisreading the remarkable passage in Bk VI. Pt II. xv., abouttrials and hardships as the way by which Heaven prepares men forgreat services. He thought it was descriptive of himself, andthat he could argue from it a good title to thecrown;—and so he was mollified to the philosopher. Itmay be worth while to give here the concluding remarks in“The Paraphrase for Daily Lessons, Explaining theMeaning of the Four Books” (Vol. I. Proleg. of largerWork, p. 131), on the chapter of Mencius which was deemed by theimperial reader so objectionable:—“Menciuswished that sovereigns should treat their ministers according topropriety, and nourish them with kindness, and therefore he usedthese perilous words in order to alarm and rouse them. As to theother side, the part of ministers, though the sovereign regaidthem as his hands and feet, they ought notwithstanding todischarge most earnestly their duties of loyalty and love. Yea,though he regard them as dogs and horses, or as the ground andgrass, they ought still more to perform their part in spite ofall difficulties, and oblivious of their person. They may on noaccount make the manner in which they are regarded, whether itbe of appreciation or contempt, the standard by which theyregulate the measure of their grateful service. The words ofConfucius, that the ruler should behave to hisministers according to propriety, and the ministers servetheir sovereign with faithfulness, contain theunchanging rule for all ages” The authors of theDaily Lessons did their work by imperial order, and evidentlyhad the fear of the court before their eyes. Their languageimplies a censure of our philosopher. There will ever be agrudge against him in the minds of despots, and their creatureswill be ready to depreciate him.

1

Bk II. Pt I. ii. 18, 19.

2

Bk III. Pt II. ix. 10.

3

Ib., par. 13.

4

See above.

5

Died AD 18.

6

See Vol. I., Proleg., p. 24.

1

This is probably the original of what appears in the“Memoires concernant les Chinois,” in thenotice of Mencius, vol. iii., and which Thornton (vol. ii., pp.216, 217) has faithfully translated therefrom in the followingterms:—“Confucius, through prudence ormodesty, often dissimulated; he did not always say what he mighthave said: Măng-tsze, on the contrary, was incapableof constraining himself; he spoke what he thought, and withoutthe least fear or reserve. He resembles ice of the purest water,through which we can see all its defects as well as itsbeauties: Confucius, on the other hand, is like a precious gem,which though not so pellucid as ice, has more strength andsolidity.” The former of these sentences is quitealien from the style of Chinese thinking andexpression.

2

One of the great scholarsof the Sung dynasty, a friend of the two Ch‘ing. Hehas a place in the temples of Confucius.

1

Also one ofChina’s greatest scholars. He has now a place in thetemples of Confucius.

1

Bk VII. Pt II. xiv.

2

Bk I. Pt II. viii.

3

Bk I. Pt II. iii.7.

1

Bk V. Pt I. v.

2

Bk V. Pt II.ix.

3

Bk VII. Pt I. xxxi.

1

Bk II. Pt I. v.

2

“Raiserighteous soldiers;”—this is theprofession of all rebel leaders in China.

3

Bk I. Pt II. iii. 7.

1

Bk III. Pt I. ii. 4.

2

Bk IV. Pt I. xx.

3

Bk I. Pt I. vi.

4

Bk IV. Pt II. xvi.

1

Bk IV. Pt I.ix.

2

Con. Ana., XIII. ix.

3

Bk VII. Pt I.xxiii.

4

Bk VI. Pt I.vii.

1

Bk I. Pt I. vii. 20, 21; Bk III. Pt I. iii.3.

2

Bk III. Pt I. iii.; Bk I.Pt II. iv.; Bk II. Pt I. v.: etal.

3

Bk III. Pt I. iii. 10.

4

Its views are now, in1874, very different.

1

Bk III. Pt iv.

1

The Chinese, vol. ii. p. 56.

2

See Bk V. Pt II. iii.vii.: et al.

1

Bk VII. Pt II. xxxiv. This passage was written onthe pillars of a hall in College street, East, where thegospel was first preached publicly in their own tongue tothe people of Canton, in February, 1858.

1

Bk VI. Pt II. xv. 1.

2

Bk V. Pt I. vii. 2, 3.

3

Bk III. Pt II. iv.

1

Bk VII. Pt I. xxxii.

1

Bk V. Pt II.iv.

1

Ana., VI. xvii.

2

Bk VI. Pt I. vi. 8; viii. 4.

3

See the annotations of the editor ofYang-tsze’s works in the “Complete Worksof the Ten Tsze. ”

1

Bk VI. Pt I. vi. 1—4.

2

Wardlaw’s Christian Ethics, edition of1833, p. 119.

3

Bk VI. Pt I.iii.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. i. ii.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. vi. 5,6.

2

Bk VI. Pt I. vi. 7.

3

Bk II. Pt I. vi. 3, 4, 5, 6.

1

I am indebted to Butlerfor fully understanding Mencius’ fourth feeling, thatof approving and disapproving, which he calls “theprinciple of knowledge,” or wisdom. In the notes onII. Pt I. vi. 5, I have said that he gives to this term“a moral sense.” It is the same withButler’s principle of reflection, by which mendistinguish between, and approve or disapprove, their ownactions.—I have heard gentlemen speak contemptuouslyof Mencius’ case in point, to prove the existence ofa feeling of benevolence in man. “This,”they have said, “is Mencius’ idea ofvirtue, to save a child from falling into a well. A mightydisplay of virtue, truly!” Such language arises frommisconceiving Mencius’ object in putting the case.“If there be,” says Butler,“any affection in human nature, the object and end ofwhich is the good of another, this is itself benevolence. Be itever so short, be it in ever so low a degree, or ever sounhappily confined, it proves the assertion and points out whatwe were designed for, as really as though it were in a higherdegree and more extensive.” “It issufficient that the seeds of it be implanted in ournature.” The illustration from a child falling into awell must be pronounced a happy one. How much lower Menciuscould go may be seen from his conversation with king Seuen, BkI. Pt I. vii., whom he leads to a consciousness of hiscommiserating mind from the fact that he had not been able tobear the frightened appearance of a bull which was being led byto be killed, and ordered it to be spared. The kindly heart thatwas moved by the suffering of an animal had only to be carriedout, to suffice for the love and protection of all within thefour seas.

2

Bk II. Pt I. vi.6.

3

Bk VI. Pt I. vi. 7.

1

See Sermon Second.

1

See note to SermonThird.

2

Bk VI. Pt I. xiv.

3

Ib., ch.xv.

4

Ib., ch.xvi.

1

Bk VII. Pt II. xxiv.

2

Bk II. Pt I. ii. 9.

3

Encyclopædia Britannica, SecondPreliminary Dissertation; on Butler.

1

Bk VII. Pt II.xvi.

2

Bk III. Pt II. ii. 3.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. ix.

2

Ib. ch. vii.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. xii. 7, 8.

2

Bk VI. Pt I. ch. viii. 1, 2.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. ch. vii. 3.

2

Ib. Pt II. ii. 1, 4, 5.

3

Bk VII. Pt I. xxx. 1; Pt II. xxxiii. 1.

4

Bk IV. Pt I. ii. 1.

1

Con. Ana., II. iv. 6.

1

Bk VI. Pt I. xi. 4.

2

Bk IV. Pt II.xii.

1

The Analogy of Religion; Part II. chap. I.

1

Bk IV. Pt I. x.

1

First Sermon Upon the Love ofGod.

2

Bk I. Pt II. ii. 3.

3

Bk IV. Pt I. xxvii. My friend, the Rev. Mr Moule, ofNingpo, has supplied me with the following interestingcoincidence with the sentiments of Mencius in this passage, fromone of the letters of Charles Lamb to Coleridge, dated Nov.14th, 1796:—“Oh, my friend, cultivate thefilial feelings; and let no one think himself relieved from thekind charities of relationship; these shall give him peace atthe last; these are the best foundation forevery species of benevolence. ”

1

Bk II. Pt I. ii. 13—15.

2

Bk II. Pt I. ii. 16.

1

Bk VI. Pt II. xv.

1

Bk III. Pt I. iv. 12,15.

1

Bk III. Pt II. ix. 9, 10.

1

Bk III. Pt I. v.

2

In the phrase for this theformer character represents a hand grasping twostalks of grain, so the phrase denotes, “alove that grasps or unites many in its embrace.” I donot know how to render it better than by “universallove.” Mencius and the literati generally find theidea of equality in it also, and it is withthem—“To love allequally.”

1

There are evidently some omissions and confusion herein the Chinese text.

1

Vol. I., Proleg., p.111.

2

See Proleg. on the Doctrine of the Mean, p.48.

3

This is the title of one of Mih’sEssays,—forming the third Book of his Works.Generalizing after his fashion, he traces all evils up to a wantof concord, or agreement of opinion; and goes on to assert thatthe sovereign must be recognized as the “InfallibleHead,” to lay down the rule of truth and right,saying. “What the sovereign approves, all mustapprove; what the sovereign condemns, all mustcondemn.” It is an unguarded utterance; and takenabsolutely, apart from its connexion, may be represented verymuch to Mih’s disadvantage. See“Supplemental Observations on the FourBooks,” on Mencius, Book 1. art. lix. The coincidencebetween this saying and the language of Hobbes isremarkable,—“Quod legislatorpræceperit, id pro bono, quod vetuerit, id pro malohabendum esse.” ( De Cive, cap.xii. 1.)

4

This is found in the 8thBook of Mih. The first and second parts of the essay, however,are unfortunately lost. In the third he tells several queerghost stories, and adduces other proofs, to show the realexistence of spiritual Beings, and that they take account ofmen’s actions to reward or to punish them. He foundanother panacea for the ills of the kingdom in this truth. Hisdoctrine here, however, is held to be inconsistent withConfucius’ reply to Fan Ch‘e, Ana. VI.xx., that wisdom consists in respecting spiritual Beings, but atthe same time keeping aloof from them. As between Confucius andMih, on this point we would agree rather with the latter. Heholds an important truth, mingled with superstition; the sage issceptical.

1

Han avoids saying anything on this point.

*

The title of the Work in Chinese is simplyMăng-tsze, or “The PhilosopherMăng,” thus simply bearing the name, or surnamerather, of him whose conversations and opinions it relates, and which, it issaid, were compiled in their present form by himself. He is always calledMăng-tsze, or Mencius, throughout the work, and not“the Master,” which epithet is confined to Confucius.See on the Analects, I. i. See also the sketch of Mencius’ lifein the Prolegomena.

**

The title of this Book in Chineseis—“King Hwuy of Lëang: in chapters andsentences. Parts I. and II.” Like the Books of the ConfucianAnalects, those of this work are headed by two or three words at or nearthe commencement of them. Each Book is divided into two parts. Thisarrangement was made by Chaou K‘e, who has been spoken of inthe Prolegomena, and to him are due also the divisions into chapters,and sentences or paragraphs contaming, it may be, manysentences.

CH. I.

BENEVOLENCE AND RIGHTEOUSNESSMENCIUS’ ONLY TOPICS WITH THE PRINCES OF HISTIME; AND THE ONLY PRINCIPLES WHICH CAN MAKE A COUNTRYPROSPEROUS.

Par. 1.

“King Hwuy ofLeang.”—In the time of Confucius, Tsinwas one of the great States, perhaps the greatest State, ofthe kingdom,—but the power of it was usurped bysix great families or clans. By BC 452, three of these were absorbed by the other three, theclans, namely, of Wei, Chaou, and Han, which continued toencroach on the small remaining authority of their princes,till at last they divided the whole territory amongthemselves. King Wei-leeh, in BC 402, granted to the chief of each family the title ofMarquis. Wei, called also, from the name of its capital,Lëang, occupied what had been the south-easternpart of Tsin, Han and Chaou lying to the west and north-westof it. The Lëang, where Mencius visited kingHwuy, is said to have been in the present district ofTs‘eang-foo, department K‘ae-fung.Hwuy—“of soft disposition and kind tothe people,”—was the posthumous orsacrificial epithet of the king, whose name was Yung. He hadusurped the title of king, as the princes of many otherStates did about the same time, before Mencius visited him,which it is said was in the 35th year of his government, BC 335. The philosopher, it issupposed, visited him on invitation.

Par. 2.

Mencius, wehave seen, was a native of Tsow in Loo, the name of whichstill remains in the Tsow district of the departmentYen-chow, in Shan-tung. The king in complimentary stylecalls the distance from Tsow to Lëang a thousand le, though in reality it was nothalf so much. The “venerable Sir,”with which he salutes the philosopher, should also be takenas complimentary, and we cannot draw any inference from itas to the age of Mencius at this time. The“likewise” has led to much speculationto bring out its meaning. Some think that the king isreferring to the many scholars of that age, who made ittheir business to wander from State to State to counsel theprinces, so that his meaning was:—“You also, like otherscholars,” c. Then when Mencius in replyuses the same term, they think that he is referring to theancient sages as his models:—“I also, like them,”c. This is too farfetched. I suppose that theking’s “likewise follows the clause“You have come a thousand le, ” and means, “That is onefavour, but you probably have others to conferalso.” Then Mencius’“likewise” refers to theking’s, and = “You say Ilikewise have counsels to profit you. What I likewise haveis benevolence,” c.

Par. 3.

Benevolence isdefined by Choo He as “the virtue of the mind,the principle of love,” and righteousness as“the regulation of the mind, the fitness ofthings.” Mencius had in mind the benevolentgovernment of which he speaks at length in many places. Seeespecially the 7th chapter of this Part.

Par. 4.

By“the kingdom of ten thousand chariots”is meant the royal domain, which, according to the theory ofthe kingdom, could send into the field 10,000 chariots; andby “the chief of a family of a thousandchariots,” one of the king’s principalministers, whose territory, which was in the roval domain,was supposed to be able to send forth a thousand chariots.“A State of a thousand chariots” wasone of the largest of the feudal States, and “thechief of a family of a hundred chariots” was oneof its principal ministers, the head of a powerfulclan.

Par. 5.

In the“likewise” here Mencius turns thetables on the king. Let him follow the example of thephilosopher, confident in the truth of the positions whichhe had stated.

CH. II.

RULERS MUST SHARE THEIR PLEASURES WITH THE PEOPLE. THEYCAN ONLY BE HAPPY WHEN THEY RULE OVER HAPPYSUBJECTS.

Parr. 1, 2.

Par. 1. must be supplemented as I havedone. Mencius would go to the court; and then the king wouldgo with him, or have left orders for him to be brought tothe park. Observe the “also” in theking’s question, and the“then” in Mencius’reply.

Par. 3.

Here is aninstance of a wise and good prince happy with his happysubjects in his park and tower and pond. See the Book ofPoetry, III. i. VIII. The last sentence shows what we are tounderstand by a prince’s sharing his pleasurewith his subjects.

Par. 4.

Here is aninstance of an oppressive prince, and of his discontentedsubjects. They were weary of their lives, and would die withhim, rather than live on as they were; how could he be happyin such circumstances? See the Shoo, IV. i.3.

CH. III.

HALF MEASURES ARE OF LITTLEUSE. IF A PRINCE CARRY OUT FAITHFULLY THE GREATPRINCIPLES OF ROYAL GOVERNMENT, THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE HIMKING.

Par. 1.

A prince waswont to speak of himself as “the small ordeficient man,” and so king Hwuy calls himselfhere. I have translated it by “small as my virtueis, I;” but hereafter I will generally translatethe phrase simply by I. “Inside theHo” and “East of the Ho”were the names of two tracts in Wei. The former remains inthe district of Ho-nuy (meaning inside the Ho), in thedepartment of Hwae-k‘ing, Ho-nan. The latter,according to the geographers, should be found in the presentHëae Chow, Shan-se; but this seems too far awayfrom the other.

Par. 3.

contains thefirst principles of Royal government, in contrast with theking’s expedients as detailed by him in par. 1.The seasons of husbandry were spring, summer, and autumn.The government should undertake no military expeditions orpublic works in them. Close nets would take the small fish,whereas these, if left untouched, would grow and increase.Generally the time to take firewood from the forests waswhen the growth for the year was over; but there were manyregulations on this point.

Par. 4.

continues thedescription of the measures of Royal government to secureplenty for the people. What I translate by“acre” was anciently a space of 100paces square,—very large paces apparently, of sixcubits each, but the cubit was not so long as it is now. Theland was marked off in squares of 900 acres, of which weshall read more at length by and by, the middle squarecontaining what was called “the publicfield,” belonging to the government. The othereight squares were allotted to eight families, each onehaving 100 acres, which it cultivated for itself, and alluniting in the cultivation of the central or governmentsquare. But from this 20 acres were cut off, and assigned inportions of 2½ acres to the farmers, to buildtheir huts on, and cultivate vegetables, c. Thesame amount of 2½ acres was assigned to eachfamily in their villages, where they lived in winter whentheir labours were not required in the fields. Thus eachfamily had five acres where they might build their dwellingsand field-huts, and cultivate their kitchen-vegetables: andon this space also they reared their mulberry-trees roundtheir houses and huts. In this way the large portion of theground was left for grain produce, while they could nourishenow of silk-worms to produce the silk which they requiredfor the use of those who were 50 years of age and over. Thesaying that persons of 70 years might eat flesh means thatthey might always have it at their meals, and in no stintedsupply. On the schools, see III. Pt I. iii. 10. Educationthus completes Mencius’ theory of Royalgovernment, the elements in which were, provision for themaintenance of all, the comfort of the aged, and a moraleducation and training for the young.

Par. 5.

Application toking Hwuy of the above principles. The two first sentencesrefer to the bad years of his opening remarks. If he tookproper advantage of the good years, he would not be obligedto resort to such extreme expedients in badones.

CH. IV.

ACONTINUATION OF THE FORMER CHAPTER, AND FURTHER EXPOSUREOF THE CHARACTER OF KING HWUY’SGOVERNMENT.

Par. 2.

The“stick” may be a staff or a club, and“the sword” any sharp-edgedweapon.

Par. 4.

The firstsentence is literally—“The stalls havefat flesh,” and by stalls we are to understandthe house or houses where cattle were fed for theking’s table. “The fields”are literally—“the wilds;”meaning here the open country, away from the capital, andgenerally away from cities and towns. The“leading on beasts to devour men” ismerely a forcible way of describing the king’smeasures, careful for the good condition of his cattle andhorses, and so negligent of the well-being of hispeople.

Par. 6.

In highantiquity, it is said, bundles of straw were formed torepresent men imperfectly, and then buried with the dead, asattendants upon them. After the rise of the Chow dynasty,wooden figures, with springs in them by which they couldmove, were used for those bundles; and this, as Confuciusthought, led to the practice of burying living persons withthe dead, and he branded the inventor of the images as inthe text. Mencius thought his words suited his purpose, andused them accordingly. We know that the practice of buryingliving persons with the dead existed in China in the time ofConfucius, and has been practised even in the presentdynasty; and the true explanation of it is very differentfrom that suggested by the sage’s words.Chung-ne;—see the Life of Confucius in VolumeI.

CH. V.

HOW A RULER MIGHT BEST MAKE HIMSELF STRONG, AND REGARDWITH INDIFFERENCE ANY EFFORTS OF HIS ENEMIES TO ATTACKOR INJURE HIM.

Par. 1.

In the note onpar. 1, ch. i. I have spoken of the breaking up of the oldState of Tsin into the three States of Wei orLëang, Chaou, and Han. They were often called“the three Tsin;” and here king Hwuyappears to call Wei alone by the name of Tsin.Ts‘e was the most powerful State, at this timestyled kingdom, lying north and east from Wei;Ts‘in was on the west of it; and Ts‘ooon the south.

Par. 2.

The case whichMencius, probably, had in view here was that of kingWăn, the founder of the Chowdynasty.

Par. 3.

Here among theelements of a benevolent government, there appear a gentlerule and light taxation. These being exercised, the peoplewould feel free to give their strength to agriculture, andhave leisure to attend to their social and moral duties, andwould moreover be ruled by a most powerful gratitude totheir ruler. Mencius’ doctrine of the goodness ofhuman nature, though it is not expressed, underlies allthis.

Par. 6.

The remarkablesaying about “the benevolent” has aspecial reference to a benevolent ruler such as Mencius hadsketched; but I have preferred to retain it in thetranslation without any limitation. The concluding remarkwas designed to caution the king against regarding thephilosopher’s remarks as merelytranscendental.

CH. VI.

DISAPPOINTMENT OF MENCIUS WITH KING SËANG OFWEI. BY WHAT RULER THE WHOLE KINGDOM MIGHT BE UNITEDUNDER ONE SWAY.

Par. 1.

Sëang was the son of king Hwuy. Thefirst year of his reign is commonly assigned to BC 317; but this cannot be regardedas certain. Seang’s name was Hih. As a posthumousepithet, Seang has variousmeanings:—“Land-enlarger andVirtuous;” “Successful inarms;” “Successful in the conduct ofaffairs.” The interview here recorded seems tohave taken place immediately after Hih’saccession, and Mencius, it is said, was so disappointed byit that he soon after left the country.

Par. 5.

“Whocan give it to him?” is by the Chinese criticsunderstood as = “Who can go tohim?” I prefer my own meaning, which accordsequally well with the scope of the chapter, and is supportedby the usage of the original term in V. i.V.

CH. VII.

LOVING AND PROTECTING THEPEOPLE IS THE GRAND CHARACTERISTIC OF ROYAL GOVERNMENT;AND THE SURE PATH TO THE ROYAL DIGNITY. HOW THISPRINCIPLE WOULD BE MANIFESTED.

This long andinteresting chapter has been arranged in five parts. In thefirst part, parr. 1—5, Mencius unfolds theprinciple of Royal government, and tells the king ofTs‘e that he possessed it. In the second, parr.6—8, he leads the king on to understand his ownmind, and how he might exercise the Royal government. In thethird, parr. 9—12, he unfolds how the king mightand ought to carry out the kindly heart which was natural tohim. In the fourth, parr. 13—18, he shows theabsurdity of the king’s expecting to gain his endby the course he was pursuing, and how rapid would be theresponse to an opposite one. In the last part he shows thegovernment that loves and protects the people in fulldevelopment, and crowned with Royal sway.

Par. 1.

Seuen was thesecond of the T‘een family who ruled inTs‘e with the title of king. The date of hisaccession is not fully ascertained, but it is generallyplaced in BC 332. His name wasP‘eih-këang. The epithet Seuenmeans—“A skilful questioner anduniversally informed,” or “Sage, good,and universally informed.” Hwan ofTs‘e and Wăn of Tsin were the greatestof the five presiding princes, who played so conspicuous apart in the Ch‘un Ts‘ëwperiod, which Confucius has chronicled. From kingSeuen’s question, it would appear that he wishedto distinguish himself as Hwan had done.

Par. 2.

Mencius, nodoubt, could have discoursed sufficiently about the affairsof Hwan and Wăn, but he did not wish to do so,and therefore gave this evasive reply. To have a real kingwas the necessity of his time; but there was more of loyaltyin the idea of a presiding prince than in the counsels whichour philosopher gave.

Par. 3.

“Tolove and protect the people” lay at thefoundation of the “benevolentgovernment” of which Mencius alwaysspoke.

Par. 4.

Hoo Heih musthave been an officer of the court of Ts‘e. Thehall here mentioned was probably that where the king wasgiving audience to his ministers. In the court below thehall, the parties would appear leading the bull past. When abell was cast they killed an animal, and with its bloodsmeared over the crevices. But the act was a religious one,and a consecration of the bell for religious or otherimportant use. Almost all things connected with theirworship were among the ancient Chinese purified withblood,—their temples and the vessels used inthem.

Par. 5.

Mencius wouldthus bring home to the king the conviction that benevolencewas natural to him. He often reasons on the constitution ofhuman nature as he does here. He pursues the subject in theparr. of the second part of the chapter.

Par. 7.

The king hereis nonplussed, and hardly knows what was his own mind in thematter; but in par. 8 Mencius relieves him from hisperplexity.

Par. 9.

See the She,II. v. Ode IV. 4.

Parr. 10, 11,

containthe famous distinction of physical and moral ability; and Ilike Mencius’ way of putting it. The case of athing that might easily be done, and yet is not done, isvery differently understood. I have followed Choo He intaking the terms in what is their naturalmeaning,—“breaking off the branch of atree.” Ch‘aou Ke understood them asmeaning “the rubbing or manipulating the elbow orany other joint of the arm;”—a servicewhich was often required from servants by their masters.Maou K‘e-ling and others cry out againstChoo’s interpretation, showing thereby, it seemsto me, only their own want of the criticalfaculty.

Par. 12.

Compare withthe opening sentence what is said in “The GreatLearning,” Comm., Chapters ix, and x. The Odequoted is the She, III. 1. VI.

14.

In Parr. 14—18, Mencius measures or weighs theking’s mind for him, and shows the object he isbent on, with the absurdity of seeking for it by the coursewhich he pursued, and also how rapid would be the responseto a different course. All the people in the kingdom, highand low, would wish to be his subjects.

Par. 20,

brings in thesubjects of “a fixed heart,” or a mindalways firm to do what is good, and of “a certainlivehood,” or a sure provision of the necessariesof life, and of the necessity of the latter to the former.We shall meet with these topics in Mencius again andagain.

Par. 23.

“The essential step to a benevolentgovernment” is the sure provision of thenecessaries of life, and the elements of moralinstruction.

Par. 24.

Compare par. 4of ch. iii. The two are nearly identical.

CH. I.

HOW THE LOVE OF MUSIC MAY BEMADE SUBSERVIENT TO GOOD GOVERNMENT, AND WHEN SHAREDWITH THE PEOPLE LEAD ON TO THE ROYAL SWAY. Thechapter is a good specimen of Mencius’ manner.The moral of it is the same as that of chapter ii. Part I.Mencius slips cleverly from the point in hand to introducehis own notions, and tries to win king Seuen over tobenevolent government by his vice itself. It is on thisaccount that Chinese thinkers say that Mencius was wantingin the consistency of a moral teacher, and refuse to rankhim with Confucius.

Par. 1.

The king herewas, it is understood, king Seuen of last chapter. ChwangPaou must have been a minister or officer about his court.He was evidently on good terms with Mencius, but his namedoes not occur in the list of his disciples. The king musthave been notorious for his love of music, andMencius’ remark that, if his love for it werevery great, Ts‘e would be in a happy state, onlycommends itself when we find what the philosopher includedin his idea of greatly loving music.

Par. 2.

The kingchanged colour, being conscious of the charges to which hewas open in connexion with his love ofmusic.

Par. 8.

This and othersimilar passages, it is argued, are to be understood withreference to the great distress of the times, which madeMencius express himself as he did. There was, no doubt, agreat difference between the music of antiquity, and that inwhich king Seuen delighted; but if Seuen and other princescould only be led on to make the comfort and happiness ofthe people their principal object, everything that was wrongwould rectify itself.

CH. II.

THAT A RULER MUST NOT INDULGE HIS LOVE FOR PARKS ANDHUNTING TO THE DISCOMFORT OF THE PEOPLE. The moralof this chapter is the same as that of thepreceding,—that a ruler must share his pleasureswith the people, or see to it that they have pleasures of asimilar kind.

Par. 1.

This isunderstood to have been the park of king Wănafter two-thirds of the States of the kingdom had given intheir adhesion to him.

Par. 3.

Mencius seemsto distinguish here between what I have called“the frontiers” of Ts‘e,and the kaou, or the country at thedistance of a hundred le from thecapital. Both at the frontiers and at the point where the kaou commenced, there were, Ibelieve, barrier gates through which travellers had to pass.He seems to say that the park was inside the circle of the kaou. These forest laws ofTs‘e were hardly worse than those enacted by thefirst Norman sovereigns of England, when whoever killed adeer, a boar, or even a hare, was punished with the loss ofhis eyes, and with death if the statute was repeatedlyviolated.

CH. III.

HOW INTERCOURSE WITHNEIGHBOURING STATES MAY BE MAINTAINED, AND THE LOVE OFVALOUR MADE SUBSERVIENT TO THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE ANDTHE GLORY OF THE PRINCE.

Par. 1.

“Abenevolent ruler” here is one who is very slow toshed blood. and will bear and forbear much before he willadopt violent measures of war to endanger the lives of hispeople. On the case of T‘ang and Koh, see III.ii. V; on that of Wăn and the hordes of the Keunwe have not much information;—see the She, III.i. III. 8, and VII. 2. On king T‘ae and theHeun-yuh, see ch. xv below; for Kow-tseen and Woo, seeTso’s Chuen, after XII. i. 2, etal., and the “History of the variousStates,” Bk lxxx.

Par. 2.

Choo He says onthe word “Heaven” here,“Heaven is just principle, i.e., the reason of things, and nothingmore.” The instance is a good one of the way inwhich he and others try to expunge the idea of a governingpower and a personal God from their classics. Heaven is hereevidently the loving and directing Power of the universe, orthe will of that Power as indicated in the course of itsProvidence.

Par. 3.

See the She,IV. i. [i] VII.

Par. 4.

From this par.Mencius deals with Seuen’s love of valour just asin ch. i. he deals with his love ofmusic.

Par. 6.

See the She,III. i. VII. 5. Mencius gives the third line differentlyfrom the common reading in the She.

Par. 7.

See the Shoo,V. i. Pt I. 7, but the quotation here is still moredifferent from the classical text. The sentiment that rulersand instructors are intended to be aiding to God is the sameas that of Paul, in Romans, xiii. 1—4, that“the powers ordained of God are the ministers ofGod.”

CH. IV.

ARULER’S PROSPERITY DEPENDS ON HIS EXERCISINGA RESTRAINT ON HIS OWN LOVE OF PLEASURE, ANDSYMPATHIZING WITH HIS PEOPLE IN THEIR JOYS ANDSORROWS,—ILLUSTRATED BY THE EXAMPLE OF DUKEKING OF TS‘E.

Par. 1.

The Snow palacewas a pleasure palace of the princes of Ts‘e, andis said to have been in the present district of Lin-tsze,department Ts‘ing-chow. Most of the critics saythat the king had lodged Mencius there and went to see himin it, and this is the most natural inference from thelanguage The king’s question was in the samewords as that of king Hwuy of Leang in ch. II. of Part I;but there it had to be understood of rulers, while here itsapplication is to Mencius himself, and there is in it anundertone of self-congratulation by the king on his handsometreatment of the philosopher. Mencius, however, starts offfrom it in his usual way to introduce his great theme ofbenevolent government, and benevolent feeling towards thepeople in the prince’s heart; and this isdeveloped in parr. 2 and 3.

Par. 4.

On duke King ofTs‘e and his minister Gan, see the Ana XII. xi.;V. xvi.; et al. King was marquis ofTs‘e for 58 years, from BC 546 to 489. Mencius here presents hischaracter in a more favourable light than Confucius does.Chuen-foo and Chaou-woo were two hills which must have beenin the north-east of Ts‘e, and looking on thewaters now called the Gulf of Pih-chih-le. Lang-yay was thename both of a hill and an adjacent city, in the presentdistrict of Choo-shing, department Ts‘ing-chow.The duke was bent evidently on pleasure, and his last wordswere simply intended to gloss that over.

Par. 5.

On the royaltours of inspection see the Shoo, II. i. 8, 9. Under theChow dynasty the kings were understood to make such toursonce in 12 years, and the feudal princes had to presentthemselves in their court once in six years. The spring andautumn movements were common to the king in his domain, andto the feudal princes in their States; but they arementioned here, as appears from the conclusion of theparagraph, with special reference to theking.

Par. 6.

What is herecalled “a host” was a body of 2,500men, by which the ruler of a State was accompanied when hewent abroad; but the term is often used generally of a bodyof followers or an army. It is the picture of a wretchedState which appears in this and the next paragraph. The“smaller princes” in the end of thisparagraph denote the lords of the small,“attached” principalities in thelarger States, and perhaps also the governors of the cities,on whom requisitions would be made to supply the wants ofthe ruler and his followers.

Par. 9.

means that hisminister would have duke King choose between the ways of theancient kings and those of the princes of his time. Othermeanings have been assigned to it, butincorrectly.

Par. 10.

I believe theproper rendering of “issued a grandproclamation” would be “proclaimed agrand fast;” but I have not ventured to give theoriginal words a meaning which none of the crities haveadopted;—though it is quite allowable. Theduke’s own occupancy of the shed was the way hetook to “afflict his soul.” Shaou was the name given to a piece ofmusic said to be transmitted from the ancient Shun, and isused here to signify that made to celebrate the goodunderstanding between King and his minister. It appears tohave consisted of two parts, one beginning with the note che, and the other with the note keoh. I do not know enough of musicmyself to explain these.

CH. V.

ONTHE PURPOSE TO PULL DOWN THE BRILLIANT HALL INTS‘E. CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF ROYAL GOVERNMENT;AND THAT NEITHER GREED OF SUBSTANCE NOR LOVE OF BEAUTYNEED INTERFERE WITH THE PRACTICE OF IT. There canbe no doubt that in this chapter Mencius suggests, if hedoes not directly incite to, rebellion. It is a gravercharge against him that, after his usual fashion, he hereoverlooks the selfish vices of the rulers of his day, andthinks that, while still practising them, they could betransformed into true kings.

Par. 1.

The“Brilliant hall” was a name given tothe principal apartment of the palaces where the kings intheir tours of inspection, spoken of in the last chapter,received the feudal princes of the different quarters of thekingdom. See the Le Ke, XIV. The one in the text was nearthe foot of mount T‘ae, and had originally beenwithin the limits of the State of Loo. Now the territorywhere it was belonged to Ts‘e, and as the Royaltours of inspection had fallen into disuse, it was proposedto king Seuen to remove the Brillianthall.

Par. 2.

Here certainlyMencius suggests to king Seuen the idea of his supersedingthe kings of Chow.

Par. 3.

K‘ewas a double-peaked hill, giving its name to the adjacentcountry which formed the old State of Chow, after theremoval of the tribe, under T‘an-foo afterwardsstyled king T‘ae, from its older seat in Pin. Themountain gives its name to the present district ofK‘e-shan, department Fung-ts‘eang, inthe south-west of Shen-se. It was in K‘e thatking Wăn succeeded to his father, and laid thefoundations of the Royal sway, to which his son Wooattained. On the 1st point of Wăn’sgovernment of K‘e see under Pt II. iii. 4.According to the 2nd, descendants of meritorious officers,if men of ability, received office, and even, if they werenot so, they had pensions in acknowledgment of the servicesof their fathers. The ponds and weirs were free to thepeople, with the restriction as to the size of their netsreferred to in Pt I. iii. 3. It is not said what measureswere adopted by king Wăn for the relief of thefour destitute classes who are mentioned. They must havebeen mainly provisions for their maintenance.

Theconcluding lines are from the She, II. iv. VIII.13.

Par. 4.

See the She,III. ii. VI. i.

Par 5.

See the She,III. i. III. 2. We may admire the ingenuity of Mencius inthe illustrations in these two paragraphs; but they wouldhave little power with a sensual, self-indulgent man likeking Seuen.

CH. VI.

BBINGING HOME HIS BAD GOVERNMENT TO THE KING OFTS‘E. This is a good specimen of thebold manner in which Mencius was not afraid to tell thetruth to the kings and princes of histime.

Par. 2.

For the officeof “chief criminal judge” see underthe Analects, XVIII. ii.

CH. VII.

WHAT IS MEANT BY AN ANCIENTKINGDOM: AND THE CAUTION TO BE EXERCISED BY A RULER INRAISING MEN TO OFFICE. HIS GREAT CARE MUST BE TO HAVETHE SYMPATHY AND APPROVAL OF THEPEOPLE.

Par. 1.

If the king hadno intimate ministers, men who had his familiar confidenceand affection, he could not have men of old families in hisservice.

Par. 3.

The“low” are new men who had notpreviously been in office. “Strangers”means literally “distant inrelationship” It appears from theCh‘un Ts‘ew and Tso Chuen that theministers in the different feudal States were nearly all offamilies which were offshoots from the rulingHouses.

Par. 6.

See the GreatLearning, Commentary, x. 3.

CH. VIII.

KILLING A SOVEREIGN IS NOTNECESSARILY REBELLION NOR MURDER. We have here oneof Mencius’ boldestutterances.

Par. 1.

T‘ang was the founder of the dynastyof Shang, and Këeh was the last of the sovereignsof Hea, a tyrant, whom T‘ang defeated andbanished to Nan-ts‘aou, where he died. Chow wasthe last of the sovereigns of Shang, also a tyrant whoburned himself to death, after his defeat by king Woo in thewild of Muh.

Par. 3.

In calling Chow“a mere fellow” Mencius probablyborrowed from king Woo, who in the Shoo, V. i. Part iii. 4,calls Chow, while still alive, “this solitaryfellow Show.”

CH. IX.

THE ABSURDITY OF A RULER’S NOT ACTINGACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF THE MEN OF TALENTS ANDVIRTUE WHOM HE CALLS TO AID IN HIS GOVERNMENT, BUTREQUIRING THEM TO FOLLOW HIS OWN WAYS. In one pointthe illustrations of Mencius here fail. A prince is notsupposed to understand either house-building orgem-cutting;—he must delegate these to other menwho do. But government he ought to understand, and he maynot delegate the responsibility of it to any scholars orofficers. No doubt, however, there was that about kingSeuen’s procedures which made ourphilosopher’s lesson to him quiteappropriate.

CH. X.

THE DISPOSAL OF KINGDOMS RESTS WITH THE MINDS OF THEPEOPLE. NO CONQUEST AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION CAN BEVINDICATED AS ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF HEAVEN, UNLESSTHE PEOPLE OF THE CONQUERED KINGDOM ARE CONTENT ANDSATISFIED.

Par. 1.

Yen laynorth-west from Ts‘e, forming part of the presentprovince of Chih-le. Its princes had in former times beenmarquises or earls, but in the age of Mencius they, likethose of many other States, had assumed the title of king.At the time to which this chapter refers, though thequestion of the chronology is much disputed, its king, apoor weakling, had resigned the throne to his chiefminister, and great confusion ensued, so that the peoplewelcomed the appearance of the troops of Ts‘e andmade no resistance to them.

Par. 2.

King Seuen bycalling both Ts‘e and Yen “States of10,000 chariots” plainly intimates that theirrulers had taken the royal title, and wished to establishtheir sway over all the land.

Par. 3.

The commonsaying is that “King Wăn hadpossession of two of the three parts of thekingdom.” But he did not think that the peoplewere prepared for the extinction of the dynasty of Shang orYin, and left the completion of the fortunes of his house tohis son Woo.

Par. 4.

Menciusdisabuses the king, and gives a natural explanation of thesuccess he had met with.

CH. XI.

AMBITION AND GREED ONLY RAISE ENEMIES AND BRINGDISASTERS. SAFETY AND PROSPERITY LIE IN BENEVOLENTGOVERNMENT. King Seuen, it appears, was unwillingto give up his appropriation of Yen, on which, however,Mencius insists.

Par. 1.

WhenT‘ang commenced his operations againstKëeh of Shang, he was the occupant of a smallprincipality, being part of the present department ofKwei-tih, Ho-nan.

Par. 2.

See the Shoo,IV. ii. 6. But the Book of the Shoo, which gave a fullaccount of T‘ang’s dealings with thechief of Koh, has been lost. See the Preface to the Shoo,Par. 10.

CH. XII.

THE AFFECTIONS OF THE PEOPLECAN ONLY BE SECURED BY BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT; AS THEYARE DEALT WITH BY THEIR RULERS, SO WILL THEY DEAL BYTHEM. ILLUSTRATED BY A CASE IN THE STATE OFTSOW.

Par. 1.

Tsow was theprincipality of which Mencius was a native:—seein the Prolegomena, at the beginning of his Life. Its powerwas much inferior to that of Loo, and therefore theengagement between their troops is not called a“battle,” but merely “askirmish,” or “a noisybrush.” Its ruler’s precise rank atthis time I have not been able to ascertain. He is calledhere by his honorary or sacrificial epithet of“duke Muh,” Muh in such applicationmeaning, “Dispenser of virtue and maintainer ofrighteousness, outwardly showing inwardfeeling.”

Par. 2.

“Calamitous years” areyears of pestilence, inundations, fires, c. The“ditches and water-channels” werenumerous, being much used in connexion with the system ofagriculture. The former are characterized as“long and small,” the latter as“deep and large.” “Thephilosopher Tsăng” we became familiarwith in the Analects as one of the principal disciples ofConfucius.

CH. XIII.

IT IS BETTER FOR A PRINCE,EVEN THOUGH HIS STATE BE SMALL, TO RELY ON HIMSELF THANTO DEPEND ON, OR TRY TO PROPITIATE, GREATERPOWERS.

Par. 1.

T‘ăng was a small State,whose lords were Kes, marquises, in early times, but nowonly viscounts,—in the present district ofT‘ăng, department Yen-chow. North ofit was the kingdom of Ts‘e, and, in the time ofMencius, Ts‘oo had so far extended its powernorthwards as to threaten it from the south. Wănis the posthumous epithet of the viscount of this time,meaning “Loyally truthful andcourteous.”

Par. 2.

Mencius couldhave given counsel on the questions proposed by the prince,but he thought he could give him better advice. He says thatthe course he suggested might be put in practice, not thatit would be successful.

CH. XIV.

A PRINCE, THREATENED BY APOWERFUL NEIGHBOUR, WILL FIND HIS BEST DEFENCE ANDCONSOLATION IN DOING WHAT IS GOOD AND RIGHT. Mencius was at his wit’s end, I suppose, to giveduke Wăn an answer. It was all very well to tellhim to do good, but the promise of a royal descendant wouldhardly afford him much comfort.

Par. 1.

Seeh was asmall principality, adjoining T‘ăng,and like it referred to the same present district indepartment Yen-chow. It had long been incorporated withTs‘e, which now proposed to fortify its principaltown, as a basis of operations, probably, againstT‘ăng.

Par. 2.

See par. 2 ofnext chapter on king T‘ae’s removalfrom Pin to K‘e.

Par. 3.

In his firstsentence here, Mencius, no doubt, was thinking, and wouldhave duke Wăn think, of the kings Wănand Woo, the descendants of kingT‘ae.

CH. XV.

TWO HONOURABLE COURSES OPEN TO A PRINCE THREATENED BYENEMIES WHOM HE CANNOT RESISTS,—REMOVAL ORABDICATION, AND DEATH IN A GALLANTDEFENCE.

Par. 2. Some ofthe particulars which Mencius gives here of kingT‘ae’s dealings with the Teih are alsofound in Fuh-săng’s Introduction tothe Shoo. They were no doubt from traditional accounts stillfloating among the people towards the end of the Chowdynasty.

CH. XVI.

DISAPPOINTMENT OFMENCIUS’ PROSPECTS OF USEFULNESS IN LOO, ANDHIS REMARKS UPON IT. A MAN’S WAY IN LIFE ISORDERED BY HEAVEN, THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF OTHER MEN INFORWARDING OR OBSTRUCTING HIS OBJECTS IS ONLYSUBORDINATE. Mencius’ presence in Loo atthis time is referred to BC 309,and he is supposed to have henceforth given up the idea ofdoing anything for his age by his labours with its kings andprinces. His prospects of doing anything with dukeP‘ing could not have been great, for Loo had fora considerable time lost its independence, and thedescendants of the duke of Chow were suffered to drag out anunhonoured existence only by the contemptuous forbearance ofTs‘oo.

Par. 1.

Yoh-ching,mentioned in par. 2, was a disciple of Mencius, with whom weshall meet again. He had found employment at the court ofP‘ing, and had spoken to him of his master, sothat now the duke was about to proceed in his carriage toinvite Mencius to his court, as his counsellor and guide.Wishing to do him honour, he would in the first place visithim at his lodging. His favourite Tsang Ts‘angknew all this, and took measures accordingly to prevent themeeting of the duke and the philosopher. The first occasionof Mencius’ mourning was, it is said, on thedeath of his father. But according to the received accountsMencius’ father died when he was only three yearsold. We must suppose that the favourite invented the accountthat he gave.

Par. 2.

The tripodshere mentioned contained the offerings of meat used in thefuneral, sacrificial rites. The king used nine, a feudalprince seven, a great officer five, and a scholar orinferior officer three. To each tripod belonged itsappropriate kind of flesh.

*

TITLE OF THIS BOOK. The name ofKung-sun Ch‘ow, one of Mencius’ disciples, headingthe first chapter, the Book is named from himaccordingly.

CH. I.

WHILE MENCIUS WISHED TO SEE ATRUE ROYAL GOVERNMENT, AND COULD EASILY HAVE REALIZED ITHAD HE BEEN IN OFFICE, SO THAT THE KING OFTS‘E WOULD SOON HAVE BECOME SOVEREIGN OF THEWHOLE KINGDOM FROM THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THETIME, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD RECOURSE TO ANY WAYSINCONSISTENT WITH ITS IDEA.

Par. 1.

It appears frompar. 2 that Kung-sun Ch‘ow was a native ofTs‘e. He must have been a cadet of the old ducalfamily. The sons of the feudal princes were styledKung-tsze, and their sons again Kung-sun, “ducalgrandsons.” Those two characters might become thesurname of their descendants, who mingled with theundistinguished masses of the people. KwanChung,—see on Ana. III. xxii.; etal. He was the chief minister of duke Hwan, thefamous leader of all the feudal princes. The ministerGan,—see on Ana. V. xvi.; etal. He was mentioned above in Book I ii.IV.

Par. 3.

Tsăng Se was, according to some, theson, according to others, the grandson of TsăngSin, one of Confucius’ most famous disciples.With Sin and with Tsze-loo the readers of the Analects mustbe familiar.

Par. 6.

Here Menciusstates his thesis, according to his fashion, in the broadestand most unlimited manner;—giving him theopportunity to explain and vindicate it as he doesbelow.

Par. 7.

KingWăn died at the age of97;—Ch‘ow uses the round number 100.According to the representations of Chinese writerstwo-thirds of the kingdom then acknowledged his supremacy.His son king Woo continued his work, and overthrew thedynasty of Shang, while another son, the duke of Chow,regulated the constitution and all the ceremonies of the newdynasty and then the principles of Wăn receivedtheir full development.

Par. 8.

FromT‘ang to Woo-ting there were altogether 18sovereigns, or, according to the Bamboo Annals, 20,exclusive of themselves; and from Woo-ting to Chow therewere seven. In the former periodT‘ae-këah, T‘ae-mow,Ts‘oo-yih, and Pwan-kăng are specifiedas “worthy and sage,” in addition toT‘ang and Woo-ting. From Woo-ting to Chow thereelapsed about a century and a quarter. The viscount of Weiwas an elder brother of Chow, and many say by the samemother, but she was not queen, but only a member of theharem, when he was born. Some critics will have it that thenext faithful adherent of Chow who is mentioned was theviscount’s brother and not his son. The viscountof Ke was a king’s son as well as Pe-kan. Theywere both, probably, uncles of Chow. Kaou Kih did not belongto the royal House of Shang, but was a faithful adherent ofit.

Par. 9.

Ability andinstruments are good; but there must also be the favourableopportunity.

CH. II.

THAT MENCIUS HAD ATTAINED TO AN UNPERTURBED MIND; THATTHE MEANS BY WHICH HE HAD DONE SO, WAS HIS KNOWLEDGE OFWORDS, AND THE NOURISHMENT OF HIS PASSION-NATURE; ANDTHAT CONFUCIUS WAS THE GREAT OBJECT OF HIS IMITATION,FOR THERE NEVER HAD BEEN ANOTHER MAN WHO COULD BEREGARDED AS HIS EQUAL. The chapter is divided intofour parts, the first, parr. 1—8, showinggenerally that there are various ways to attain anunperturbed mind: the second, parr. 9, 10, exposing theerror of the way taken by the philosopher Kaou; the third,parr 11—17, unfolding Mencius’ ownway., and the fourth, parr. 18—28, showing thatMencius followed Confucius, and praising that sage as thefirst of mortals. It is in a great measure owing to whatMencius says in this chapter about the nourishment of thepassion-nature that a place has been accorded to him amongthe sages of China, or in immediate proximity to them. Hisviews are substantially these.—Man’snature is composite. He possesses moral and intellectualpowers (comprehended under the terms“heart” and“mind,” interchanged with“will”), and active powers (summed upunder the term k‘e, andembracing the emotions, desires, and appetites). The moraland intellectual powers should be supreme and govern, butthere is a close connexion between them and the others whichgive effect to them. The active powers should not bestunted, for then the whole character will be feeble. But onthe other hand they must not be allowed to take the lead.They must get their tone from the mind, and the way todevelope them in all their completeness is to do good. Letthem be vigorous, and the mind clear and pure, and we shallhave the man whom nothing external to himself canperturb,—Horace’s justum et tenacem propositi virum. In brief, if wetake the sanum corpus of the Romanadage as not expressing merely the physical body, but thewhole physical and emotional nature, what Mencius exhibitshere may be said to be “ mens sanain corpore sano. ”

The attentivereader will find the above thoughts dispersed through thischapter, and be able to separate them from the irrelevantmatter—that especially relating toConfucius—with which they are setforth.

Par. 1.

The questionerhere is the same who discourses with our philosopher in thepreceding chapter;—see there on par. 1. The onechapter may indeed be considered as the sequel of the other.The disciple allows that the master could achieve what hehad asserted, and asks whether the being placed in aposition to do so would disturb his mind.

It was amaxim with the ancient Chinese that a man was in hisgreatest vigour at 40, and able to encounter all thedifficulties of official service; see the Le Ke, I. Pt I. i.27. Compare Confucius’ account of himself in Ana.II. iv.

Par. 2.

MăngPun was a celebrated bravo, probably of Ts‘e, ofwhom various feats of strength and daring are recorded. Thescholar Kaou is probably the same who gives name to thesixth Book of Mencius, which see.

Par. 4.

Pih-kung Yewbelonged, probably, to the State of Wei, and was a cadet ofone of the principal clans in it, sprung from the rulingHouse. There was, however, a clan also in Ts‘ewith the surname of Pih-kung. Yew evidently was a bold andreckless fellow.

Par. 5.

OfMăng She-shay we know nothing but what we aretold here. He was evidently a bold and fearlessman.

Par. 6.

Pih-kungYëw thought of others, and was determined toconquer, if he could; Măng She-shay thought onlyof himself, and allowed no fear to enter his mind. It is onthis account that Mencius gives Măng thepreference. The basis of the reference to the two disciplesof Confucius was the commonly received idea of their severalcharacters. Tsăng (see on Ana. I. iv.) wasreflective, and dealt with himself, Tsze-hea was learned andambitious, and would not be inferior toothers.

Par. 7.

Tsze-seăng was a disciple ofTsăng. The sentiment of Confucius is the same asthat of Solomon, with a characteristic difference ofexpression.—“The wicked flee when noman pursueth; but the righteous are bold as alion.”

Par. 8.

Here we firstmeet with the character k‘e, so important in this chapter. Originally it was the same inform as another meaning “cloudyvapour.” With the addition of the character for“rice,” or that for“fire,” it should indicate“steam of rice,” or“steam” generally. The sense in whichMencius uses it is indicated in the translation and in thepreliminary note That sense springs from its being used ascorrelate to sin, “themind,” taken in connexion with the idea of“energy” inherent in it from itscomposition. Thus it signifies the lower but active portionof man’s constitution: and in this paragraph,that lower part in its lowest sense,—animalvigour or courage.

Par. 9.

Kaou’s principle seems to have beenthis,—indifference to everything external andentire passivity of mind. Modern writers are fond of sayingthat in his words are to be found the essence of Buddhism,and that his aim was to obtain a sort of Buddhistic nirvana; and perhaps this helps us to aglimpse at his meaning, which is far from being evident.Mencius’ concession of the second of hisinstructions is not to be understood as an approval of it,but simply that he did not consider it so objectionable asthe other; and he goes on to show wherein he considered itto be defective.

Par. 10.

Ch‘ow did not understand what hismaster had said about the relation between the mind and thepassion-nature: and as the latter was subordinate, he wouldhave had it disregarded altogether. Hence his question; butMencius shows that the passion-nature is really a part ofour constitution, acts upon the mind, and is acted on by it,and ought not to be disregarded.

Parr. 11—16.

There is much vain babbling in the Chinesecommentators about “the vast, flowing,passion-nature,” to show how the k‘e of heaven and earth is the k‘e also of man. Mencius, itseems to me, has before his mind the idea of a perfect man,complete in all the parts of his constitution; and it isthis which gives its elevation to his language. There ismuch that is good and important in what he says. A course of righteous action, where thecharacter is at all heroical, as that of Mencius was,produces a wonderful boldness and vigour of character. Whilea bad conscience makes men cowards, a good conscienceoperates as effectually in the contrarydirection.

Par. 17.

With regard tothe first ground of Mencius’ superiority overKaou.—his “knowledge ofwords,” as he is briefer than on the other, so,to my mind, he is less satisfactory. Perhaps he meant to saythat, however great the dignity to which he might be raised,his knowledge of words and ability to refer incorrect andinjurious speeches to the mental defects from which theysprang would keep him from being deluded, and preserve hismind unperturbed. One of the scholars, Ch‘ing,uses this illustration:—“Mencius, withhis knowledge of words was like a man seated in a hall, whocan distinguish all the movements of the people below it,which he could not do if it were necessary for him todescend and mingle with the crowd.”

Theconcluding remark gives rise to the rest of the chapter, itseeming to Ch‘ow that Mencius placed himself byit on the platform of sages.

Par. 18.

Compare Ana.XI. ii. 2, to the enumeration in which of the excellenciesof several of Confucius’ disciples there seems tobe here a reference. But the point ofCh‘ow’s question lies in the remark ofthe sage about himself, found nowhere else, and obscureenough. He thinks that Mencius is taking more upon himselfthan Confucius did.

Parr. 19—21.

Mencius disclaims being regarded as a sage: butdoes he indicate that he thought himself superior to all thedisciples of Confucius mentioned byCh‘ow,—even to Yen Yuen? Hardly somuch as that; but that he would not be content with them ashis model.

Parr. 22—24.

Pih-e,—see on Ana. V. xxii. E.Yin,—see my note on the title of Book IV. PartIV. of the Shoo. Mencius discourses fully on both theseancient worthies in V. ii. I., et al. The different ways of them and of Confucius have been thusexpressed:—“The principle of Pih-e wasto keep himself pure; that of E Yin, to take office; andthat of Confucius, to do what the time required.”But while thus differing, they would equally keep aloof fromwhatever was unrighteous, however they might betempted.

Par. 25.

YewJoh,—see on Ana. I. ii. With parr.26—28 compare the eulogium of Confucius in theDoctrine of the Mean, chh. xxx.—xxxii., and alsoAna. XIX. chh. xxiii.—xxv. It is in vain thewestern reader tries to quicken himself to any correspondingappreciation of the sage. We look for the being whom hisdisciples describe as vainly as we do for the fabulous k‘e-lin andphœnix, to which they compare him. The k‘e is properly the male,and the lin the female of the animalreferred to,—a monster with a deer’sbody, an ox’s tail, and a horse’sfeet, c., which appears to greet the birth of asage, or the reign of a sage sovereign. So in fung-hwang, which I have rendered phœnix, the names of themale and female are put together to denote one individual ofeither sex. In the words “rise up above thecrowd,” the image is that of stalks of grass orgrain, shooting high above the level of the wavingfield.

CH. III.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALEADER OF THE PRINCES AND A TRUE SOVEREIGN ARISES FROMSUBMISSION CONSTRAINRD BY FORCE AND THAT ACCORDED TOVIRTUE AND BENEVOLENCE.

Par. 1.

T‘ang was the founder of the Shangdynasty, as king Wăn was of that of Chow. Thesize of their States is that of their hereditarypossessions; though we know that those of the House of Chowhad increased very largely before the final struggle betweenit and that of Shang, conducted by king Woo, the son ofWăn.

Par. 2.

“Theseventy disciples” is a round number. See on thedisciples of Confucius in the Prolegomena to vol. i. of mylarger Work. The ode from which the quotation is made is thelast of the first Book of the third Part of the She,celebrating the kings Wăn and Woo. The linesquoted refer specially to Woo. Tsow Haou, a statesman andscholar of the 11th century, says on thischapter:—“He who subdues men by forcehas the intention of subduing them, and they dare not butsubmit. He who subdues them by virtue has no intention tosubdue them, and they cannot but submit. From antiquitydownwards there have been many dissertations on the leaderof the princes and the true sovereign, but none so deep,incisive, and perspicuous as thischapter.”

CH. IV.

THE INCONSISTENCY OF A RULER’S SEEKING TO BEGREAT AND GLORIOUS BY ANY OTHER COURSE BUT THAT OFBENEVOLENCE. CALAMITY AND HAPPINESS ARE MEN’SOWN SEEKING.

Par. 1.

“Glory” here is not onlythe glory of reputation, but specially that of success andhigh position.

Par. 2.

Compare withthis the 20th chapter of the “Doctrine of theMean.”

Par. 3.

See the She, PtI. xv. Ode II., where the duke of Chow personating a smallbird addressing an owl, vindicates the vigour of hismeasures in suppressing rebellion. Mencius adduces thestanza, with the moral of it as expounded by Confucius, toshow how a ruler should strengthen himself by vigorous andprecautionary measures.

Parr. 4—6.

Par. 4. shows how the rulers of his time took nosuch measures, but pursued a thoughtless, reckless course ofan opposite tendency. For the poetry quoted in par. 6. seethe She, III. i. Ode I.; and for the passage from theT‘ae-këah, see the Shoo, IV. v., Ptii. 3.

CH. V.

FIVE POINTS OF TRUE ROYAL GOVERNMENT, THE PRACTICE OFWHICH WOULD HAVE CARRIED ANY OF THE PRINCES OFMENCIUS’ TIME TO THE THRONE OF THE WHOLEKINGDOM ON THE TIDE OF UNIVERSALPOPULARITY.

Par. 1.

Compare thefirst part of par. 2. in the previous chapter. The pointdescribed here would have brought all the scholars, or theofficial class, of the different States to the court of theruler who practised it.

Par. 2.

describes thesecond point which would have attracted all the traders andmen of business from the four quarters. According to ChooHe, the capitals and large cities in those ancient timeswere laid out after the fashion of the division of the landin portions of nine equal squares as in the figure ,where the central square contained the fields of the State.The central square in the cities contained the palace andbuildings connected with it; that in front of it, theancestral and other temples, the government treasuries,arsenals, c.; that behind it was the market-place,or place of business; and the three squares on each sidewere occupied by the dwellings of the people. He adds thatwhen traders became too many, a ground-rent was levied ontheir stances or shops; and that when they were few, it wasremitted, and only a surveillance of the markets wasexercised by the proper officers. That surveillanceconsisted in the inspection of weights and measures,regulation of prices, c. This view seems to give usa satisfactory meaning for this paragraph. ChaouK‘e understands the second clause in it of thetithe of the produce of the ground; but it is foreign to theobject of Mencius to introduce that subject in speaking ofthe traders in the market-place.

Par. 3.

See I. Pt i.VII. 18; Pt ii. V. 3. The“travellers,” I suppose, would mostlyconsist of men moving from State to State in the prosecutionof business.

Par. 4.

The levying ofa tax, an additional tithe, on the produce of the fieldswhich by the theory of the division of the land were theprivate possession of the husbandmen, commenced in Loo inthe 16th year of duke Seuen:—see in theCh‘un Ts‘ëw and the TsoChuen, on VII. xvi. 8. Other States, no doubt, had adoptedthe practice of Loo in the matter.

Par. 5.

It is difficultto determine the meaning of this paragraph. Anciently a finehad been levied on the idlers who neglected to plantmulberry-trees and hemp about the ground assigned to themfor their huts and dwellings besides the fields which weredevoted to the cultivation of grain;—being atfirst so much cloth, and subsequently the equivalent of thatin money. Then some ground-rent was levied perhaps from allthe husbandmen for the ground so assigned for theirdwellings. These two taxes appear in Mencius’time to have been levied from all occupying the threesidespaces of the cities to which I have referred in par. 2;and it is this exaction which Mencius herecondemns.—Many of the residents in those spaceswould be the mechanics of the States; and thus the fivepoints recommended in this chapter would secure thegood-will of the four classes into which the population wasanciently divided:—scholars or the officialclass, husbandmen, mechanics, andtraders.

Par. 6.

“Theminister of Heaven” appears again in Pt ii. VIII.2. On this designation one commentator observes.“An officer is one commissioned by his ruler; theofficer of Heaven is he who is commissioned by Heaven. Hewho bears his ruler’s commission can punish menand put them to death:—he may deal so with allcriminals. He who bears the commission of Heaven can executejudgment on men and smite them;—he can deal soeven with all who are oppressing and misgoverning theirStates.”

CH. VI.

THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF BENEVOLENCE, RIGHTEOUSNESS,PROPRIETY, AND KNOWLEDGE BELONG TO MAN AS NATURALLY ASHIS FOUR LIMBS, AND MAY AS EASILY BE EXERCISED. This chapter is important in its connexion with the doctrineof Mencius respecting the goodness of human nature; butwhile the assertions of it are universally true, they are tobe understood as introduced here with special reference tothe oppressive ways and government of the princes of histime.

Par. 1.

Compare parr.4, 5, 6 in I. Pt i. VII. Chaou K‘e and manyothers understand the language about “the mindthat cannot bear other men,” as if it meant“the mind that cannot bear [toinjure] others.” But it is not somuch—cannot bear to inflict suffering,as—cannot bear to see suffering. Those paragraphsmake this plain, as well as the illustration whichimmediately follows here in par. 3.

Par. 3.

The object hereis to prove that the feeling of commiseration isinstinctive, and does not spring up from any considerationsof interest or advantage to be got by it.

Parr. 4, 5.

In par. 4we have Mencius’ account of the moralconstitution of human nature. “The feeling ofdistress, of shame,” c., is in theoriginal “the mind that feels distress,shame,” c. The mind is one, but allthese feelings are natural to it, and make it what it is.“Principle” in par. 5, is the righttranslation of the original term, meaning “thebeginning,” as the end of a clue, c. Thefeeling of distress is in itself benevolent, and from theprimary feeling all benevolent feelings and actions may bedeveloped. “Knowledge” is the onlyterm with which I am not satisfied. Would“wisdom” be a better word, with themeaning it has in such passages of the Bible as“The fear of the Lord is the beginning ofwisdom?”

Parr. 6, 7.

“To play the thief withone’s self, or with one’sruler,” is to injure and rob one’sself or one’s ruler, taking away from him thatwhich properly belongs to him. In par. 7 Mencius must beginthe application of his principles with an“if.” His analysis of human nature isadmirable, but something is the matter with it of which heis not aware.

CH. VII.

THE PRINCIPLE OF BENEVOLENCESHOULD DOMINATE IN ALL THE PROFESSIONS OFLIFE,—IN THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT AND INTHE ARTS OF LOWER WALKS. THE BENEVOLENT RULER WILL NEVERBE A SERVANT OF OTHERS, AND HE WHO IS SO HAS ONLYHIMSELF TO BLAME. The argument of Mencius in thischapter is more loosely put forth than in his generalpractice, and it is more difficult to set it forthconcisely.

Par. 1.

The term whichI have translated “priest” here occursin the Analects, XIII. xxii., where it is translated by“wizard.” See the passage. As opposedto a “coffin-maker,” who makesprovision for the death of men, it indicates one by whoseprayers and other methods it is sought to procure life andprosperity for men.

Par. 2.

See Ana. IV.i.

Par. 3.

The firstclause here flows from the previous par., and the next seemsto show what will be the consequence of being devoid ofbenevolence and wisdom; and the whole will result inservitude to others. That result is natural, and he whogrieves under it has only himself toblame.

Par. 5.

Compare Ana.III. vii. and xvi.

CH. VIII.

HOW SAGES AND WORTHIESDELIGHTED IN WHAT WAS GOOD. TO HELP OTHERS TO PRACTISEGOODNESS IS A GREAT INSTANCE OFVIRTUE.

Par. 1.

Tsze-loo’s ardour in pursuing hisself-improvement appears in Ana. V. xiii., and other places;but the particular point mentioned here is not mentionedanywhere else.

Par. 2.

See the Shoo,II. iii. 1.

Par. 3.

Shun’s distinction was that he did notthink of himself as Tsze-loo did, nor of others as Yu did,but only of what was good, and was unconsciously carried toit wherever he saw it.

Par. 4.

It is relatedof Shun that in his early days he ploughed at the foot ofthe Leih mountain, did potter’s work on the banksof the Ho, fished in the Luy lake, made various implementson the Show mountain, and often resided atFoo-hëa. There will be occasion to consider wherethese places were in connexion with some ofMencius’ future references to him. On hiselevation to be emperor see the first Book of theShoo.

CH. IX.

PICTURES OF PIH-E AND HWUY OF LEW-HEA; ANDMENCIUS’ JUDGMENT CONCERNINGTHEM.

Par. 1.

Pih-e,—see on ch. ii.22.

Par. 2.

Hwuy ofLëw-hëa,—see on Ana. XV.xiii.; XVIII. ii.; viii.

Par. 3.

By“the superior man,” Mencius, perhaps,tacitly referes to himself as having taken Confucius for hismodel. One commentator says on thisparagraph;—“Elsewhere Mencius advisesmen to imitate E and Hwuy, but he is there speaking to theweak; when here he advises not to follow them, he isspeaking for those who wish to do the right thing at theright time.”

CH. I.

NO ADVANTAGES WHICH A RULERCAN OBTAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENCE, OR TO EXALT HIMOVER OTHERS, ARE EQUAL TO HIS POSSESSING THE HEARTS OFMEN. Because of this chapter Mencius has got aplace in China among the writers on the art of war, whichsurely he would not have wished to claim for himself, hisdesign being to supersede the recourse to armsaltogether.

Par. 1.

Chinesecommentators have much to say about ascertaining the“time of Heaven” by divination andastrology: but all this is to be set aside as foreign to themind of Mencius in the text, though many examples of theresort to those arts can be adduced from ancient records.“The accord of men” is the loyal unionof the people with their ruler.

Par. 2.

The city heresupposed, with its double circle of fortification, is asmall one, the better to illustrate the superiority ofadvantage of situation, just as that in the next par. is alarge one, to bring out the still greater superiority of theunion of men. A city of the dimensions specified here wasthe capital of a baronial State.

Par. 4.

“Theproper course” intended is that style ofgovernment on the principles of benevolence andrighteousness which is sure to unite the hearts of thepeople to their ruler. “Relatives” arerelatives by blood; “connexions,”merely relatives by affinity.

CH. II.

HOW MENCIUS CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS SLIGHTING HIM FORTHE KING OF TS‘E TO CALL HIM BY MESSENGERS TOGO TO COURT TO SEE HIM; AND THE SHIFTS HE WAS PUT TO TOGET THIS UNDERSTOOD. It must be understood thatMencius was in Ts‘e simply as an honoured guest,in his capacity of teacher or philosopher, and had notaccepted any official position with the salary attached toit. It was for him to pay his respects at court, if hewished to do so; but if the king wished to show him respectand to ask his counsel, it was for him to go to him, and beghis instructions.

Par. 1.

The morning, assoon as it was light, was the regular time for the king andfeudal princes to give audience to their ministers andofficers, and arrange about the administration of affairs;and this is also the modern practice in China. Theking’s saying that he had a cold was merely apretence;—he wanted to get Mencius to come tohim. Mencius’ saying that he was unwell wasequally a pretence. Compare Confucius’ conduct inAna. XVII. xx.

Par. 2.

Tung-kwoh was aclan name in Ts‘e, taking its rise from thequarter where the founder of it had lived. Some member ofthe family had died, and Mencius now went to it to pay avisit of condolence, that the king might hear of his doingso, and understand the lesson he had meant to give him theday before by saying that he was unwell. The disciple didnot understand the reason of his proceeding, and ourphilosopher, we think, had better have told it to himplainly than go on to furtherprevarication.

Par. 3.

MăngChung must have been a near relative ofMencius:—some say that he was a son; others, anephew. “He was a little unwell” is inChinese “he had anxiety about gatheringfirewood.” To do this was the business of thechildren of the common people, from which sickness alonecould give them a dispensation. Used of Mencius it was anexpression of humility. Neither did Măng Chungunderstand the conduct of his father or uncle; and havingcommitted himself to a falsehood about it, he took the stepwhich is related to get Mencius to go to court to make hisown words good.

Par. 4.

Mencius wasresolved that the king should know the reason of his notgoing to court; and as the words of Măng Chunginterfered with his first plan for that purpose, he now wentto another officer of Ts‘e whose acquaintance heenjoyed, and talked the matter over with him fully, thatthrough him the whole thing might reach theking’s ears.

Par. 5.

The passagesquoted by the officer King from the Book of Rites (I Pt I.iii. 14; XIII. iii. 2) were not fully applicable to Mencius,who did not consider himself a minister of Ts‘e.He was there as an honoured visitor, and would only takeoffice if he saw reason to believe that the king wouldfollow his counsels.

Par. 8.

We are toldthat it was only after T‘ang had five timessolicited the presence of E Yin by special messengers thatthat worthy was induced to go to him. See the confidencereposed by duke Hwan in Kwan Chung in Pt I. i. 3. Kwan wastaken to Ts‘e originally as a prisoner to be putto death, but the duke, knowing his ability and worth, haddetermined to make him his chief minister, and therefore,having first caused him to be relieved of his fetters, hedrove himself out of his capital and met him with alldistinction, listening to a long discourse from him ongovernment.

Par. 9.

All things wereready for one prince to exceed all the others, and to bemade king; but no one would follow the counsels of Menciuswhich would have resulted in such anissue.

Par. 10.

Compare Pt I.i. 4.

CH. III.

BY WHAT PRINCIPLES MENCIUS WASGUIDED IN RECEIVING OR DECLINING THE GIFTS TENDERED TOHIM BY THE PRINCES. The practice of receiving giftsfrom the princes whom he condemned was one of the weakpoints in Mencius’ life, and his disciples wereevidently stumbled by it. He had always something to say,however, in reply to their doubts andquestions;—ingenious, if not altogethersatisfactory.

Par. 1.

Ch‘in Tsin was one ofMencius’ disciples, but this is all that is knownof him. Nor can we tell to what period of ourphilosopher’s life this conversation should bereferred. Fine silver, is, literally, “doublemetal;” i.e., silver (notgold) worth twice as much as that in ordinary circulation.Sung was the dukedom over which the representatives of thekings of the Shang dynasty ruled, having as its capitalShang-kew, which name remains in the district so called ofthe department Kwei-tih in Ho-nan. Seeh,—see onI. Pt II. xiv. 1. I suppose that though Seeh inMencius’ time belonged to Ts‘e thedescendants of its former princes were permitted toadminister it, and that it was one of them who sent to himthe present here mentioned.

Parr. 3—5.

These contain the explanation which Mencius givesof his conduct. He took gifts when he had occasion forthem;—it would have been better if he had nottaken them at all.

CH. IV.

HOW MENCIUS BROUGHT CONVICTION OF THEIR FAULTS TO ANOFFICER OF TS‘E AND TO THE KING. Thisbrief chapter is a good instance of Mencius’manner, and of the ingenuity which he displayed in bringinghis counsels before those whom he wished most toinfluence.

Par. 1.

P‘ing-luh was a city—one ofthose called capitals, as having inthem an ancestral temple of the princes of theState—in the south of Ts‘e, somewhere,probably, in the present department of Yen-chow. Itsgovernor or commandant, presiding also over the countryaround it, was K‘ung Keu-sin.

Par. 2.

Thegovernor’s saying that the case which Menciusdescribed was not one in which he could act meant that themeasures to provide for it, such as opening the publicgranaries, could only emanate from theking.

Par. 3.

Mencius wishedthe governor to understand that he ought not in suchcircumstances to retain his office.

CH. V.

THE FREEDOM WHICH MENCIUS CLAIMED FOR HIMSELF INRETAINING HIS POSITION IN TS‘E,NOTWITHSTANDING OBJECTIONABLE MEASURES OF THE KING, WASBECAUSE HE WAS UNSALARIED.

Par. 1.

OfCh‘e Wa we only know what is related here.Ling-k‘ëw was a city in the borders ofTs‘e, remote from the court. Ch‘e Wahad been governor of it, but got himself appointed chiefcriminal judge, wishing to be near the king, with whom thisoffice would give him the opportunity to remonstrate onmeasures of which he did not approve. Perhaps he found iteasier to resolve to discharge that disagreeable duty, thanto carry the resolution into practice.

Parr. 2—4.

Ch‘e Wa, stimulated by Mencius, didremonstrate and then felt it necessary to retire fromoffice. We cannot wonder at the remarks of the people onMencius’ conduct.

Kung-too was one of hisdisciples with whom we shall meet again. Mencius thoughthighly of him, but this is nearly all we know about him. Heappears to have been descended from a prince ofTs‘oo, who held the city of Too; and hence thesurname.

CH. VI.

MENCIUS’ BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS AN UNWORTHYASSOCIATE.

Par. 1.

Mencius’ situation as a“noble” or “highdignitary” of Ts‘e appears to havebeen honorary only, without emolument, and the king employedhim on this occasion to give weight by his character to themission. But he associated with him Wang Hwan, an unworthyfavourite. I think Mencius had better have declined themission, and escaped from the association altogether, thanbehave as he did.

Par. 2.

ChaouK‘e understands the first part ofMencius’ reply to Ch‘ow as relating toWang Hwan, and = “The fellow attendedto them—managedthem—himself;” but the interpretationfollowed in the version is more natural, and in harmony withthe ordinary usage of the terms.

CH. VII.

THAT ONE OUGHT TO DO HISUTMOST IN THE BURIAL OF HISPARENTS;—ILLUSTRATED BY THE STYLE IN WHICHMENCIUS BURIED HIS MOTHER. Compare I Pt II.xvi.

Par. 1.

The traditionis that Mencius had had his mother with him inTs‘e, and that on her death he carried the coffinto the family sepulchre in Tsow, which now was part of Loo.How long he remained in Loo is uncertain; perhaps the wholethree years proper to the mourning for a parent. Ying was acity in the south of Ts‘e, and it is alsodisputed whether his stopping at it was for a night merely,or for a longer period. Ch‘ung Yu was one ofMencius’ disciples, and it has been deemedstrange, if the philosopher completed the period of mourningin Loo, that Yu should have submitted his doubts to himafter the lapse of so long a time. But it has been repliedthat this only illustrates how fond Mencius’disciples were of applying to him for a solution of theirdoubts; and the instance of Ch‘in Tsin in chapteriii. is another case in point of the length of time theywould keep things in mind. The different speculations on thepoints thus indicated are endless.

Par. 2.

“Middle antiquity”commences with the Chow dynasty, and Mencius has referenceespecially to the statutes settled by the duke of Chow forthe regulation of funeral and other rites; though what hesays about the equal thickness of the inner and outercoffins does not agree with what we find in the Le Ke, XXII.ii. 31. It must be borne in mind also that seven inches ofthe Chow dynasty were only equal to rather more than fourinches of the present day.

CH. VIII.

EVEN DESERVED PUNISHMENT OUGHTNOT TO BE INFLICTED BY ANY BUT THE PROPER AUTHORITY. ANOFFENDING STATE CAN ONLY BE ATTACKED BY THE MINISTER OFHEAVEN;—ILLUSTRATED FROM THE CASE OFTS‘E AND YEN. See on Book I. Pt II. xand xi. This chapter should come in perhaps, in point oftime, before ch. x. there. Tsze-k‘wae was thename of the weak king of Yen who had resigned his portion tohis favourite minister Tsze-che.

Par. 1.

ShinT‘ung must have been a minister ofTs‘e; and though he consulted Mencius, as is hererelated, about attacking Yen, on his own private impulse, hemust have informed the king and others of the answer of thephilosopher which was supposed to justify the movement ofTs‘e against the neighbouringState.

Par. 2.

Compare whatMencius did really say to the king of Ts‘e on thesubject of his appropriating the vanquished Yen in I. Pt II.x. and xi.

CH. IX.

HOW MENCIUS EXPOSED THE ATTEMPT TO ARGUE IN EXCUSE OFERRORS AND MISCONDUCT:—REFERRING ALSO TO THECASE OF TS‘E AND YEN. This chaptershould come in after ch. xi. of I. Pt II.

Par. 1.

The king wasnaturally ashamed of himself for having misinterpreted whatMencius had said to Shin T‘ung, and neglected theadvice which he had given to himself.

Par. 2.

Ch‘in Këa was, like ShinT‘ung, an officer of Ts‘e. The case ofthe duke of Chow to which Këa reterred wasthis:—On king Woo’s extinction of thedynasty of Shang, having spared the life of the son of thelast sovereign, he farther conferred on him the small Stateof Yin from which the dynasty had taken one of its names,but placed him under the surveillance of two of his ownbrothers, Sëen and Too, one of them older and theother younger than another brother, Tan the duke of Chow, bywhose advice, we must understand, the step was taken.Sëen has come down to us with the title ofKwan-shuh, Kwan being the name of the principality which hehad received for himself. After Woo’s death, Seenand Too joined the heir of Yin in rebelling against the newdynasty, when the duke of Chow took action against them, putthe former to death and banished theother.

Par. 3.

What Menciusmeans in the conclusion of this paragraph is, that brotherought not to be suspicious of brother, and that it isbetter, between brothers, to be deceived than to imputeevil.

Par. 4.

In thephrase—“the superior men of thepresent day,” “the superiormen” has to be taken vaguely, and merelymeans—those who wish to be regarded as superiormen.

CH. X.

MENCIUS, IN LEAVING A STATE OR REMAINING IN IT, WAS NOTINFLUENCED BY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATIONS, BUT BY THEOPPORTUNITY DENIED OR ACCORDED TO HIM OF CARRYING HISLESSONS INTO PRACTICE:—ILLUSTRATED BY THECIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING HIS LEAVINGTS‘E.

Par. 1.

Mencius hadgiven the king of Ts‘e a long trial, and it wasclear that nothing really great was to be accomplished withhim. He therefore resigned his honorary office, and preparedto withdraw from the State or kingdom. I think I have giventhe true meaning of the paragraph. Chaou K‘eindeed makes the “returning” to beonly to Mencius’ own house in the capital ofTs‘e; but according to that view, the“I do not venture to make anyrequest,” in the nextpar.=“I do not venture to ask you tocome again in person to see me;” which is surelyflat and absurd.

Par. 2.

Mencius seesthat the king, with all his complimentary expressions, isreally bidding him adieu, and answers accordingly, in ascomplimentary a way, intimating his purpose to begone.

Par. 3.

The king afterall does not like the idea of Mencius’ goingaway, and thinks of this plan to retain him, which was inreality what Mencius calls in ch. iii. trying to take himwith a bribe. She was an officer at the court ofTs‘e.

The chung wasthe name of a large measure of grain, equal to 64 tow or pecks, amounting to about sevenhundred-weight. “The centre of thekingdom” is to be understood of the capital, asin the She, III. ii. IX.

Par. 4.

“Thedisciple Ch‘in” here is theCh‘in Tsin of ch. iii.

Par. 5.

Mencius doesnot care to state plainly here his real reason forgoing,—that he was not permitted to see hisprinciples carried into practice; and therefore contentshimself with repelling the idea that he was accessible topecuniary considerations 100,000 chung was the regular allowance for a high minister, which Menciushad declined to receive.

Par. 6.

Ke-sun was theclan name of the greatest of the families of Loo, but whichof the Heads of that clan was here intended we do not know.Tsze-shuh was also a clan name in Loo, but of E, the memberof it who is mentioned, we know nothing beyond what is heretold. Mencius quotes the remarks of Ke-sun about Tsze-shuhE, to show that they would be applicable to himself, if hewere to take the course suggested to him from the king ofTs‘e. Chaou K‘e makes out Ke-sun andTsze-shuh to have been disciples of Mencius, and accordingto his view we should have to translate. “Ke-sunsaid, ‘How strange [is thiscourse]!’ ” Tsze-shuh[also] doubted [aboutit]. “Suppose,”[they thought,] “he himselfis no longer employed as a high minister, let him go away,but let him get his disciples into thesituation,” c. But all this is plainlyinadmissible.

Par. 7.

Mencius hereexplains the expression in the end of Ke-sun’sspeech about “monopolizing the conspicuousmound,”—explains it in a way to showstill more pointedly his sense of the proposal of the kingof Ts‘e.

CH. XI.

HOW MENCIUS REPELLED A MAN, WHO, OFFICIOUSLY AND ON HISOWN IMPULSE, WISHED TO DETAIN HIM INTS‘E.

Par. 1.

Chow was a cityon the south-western border of Ts‘e, at whichMencius had arrived in his progress to Loo. He had conductedhis departure leisurely, hoping that the king would recallhim ere he had left the State, and pledge himself to followhis counsels.

Par. 2.

Who the personthat thus intruded himself into Mencius’ companywas we do not know. All that is meant by “for theking” is that he knew that it would please theking if he could induce Mencius to remain. “Leantupon his stool;”—the stool was small,and could be carried in the hand. Parties leant forward, orback, on it, as they sat upon the mat, which was spread forthem on the floor.

Par. 3.

“Ifasted for two days” is literally “Ifasted and passed the night;” that is,“I fasted over thenight,”=“I have fasted twodays.” Tsze-sze was the well-known grandson ofConfucius. Shin Ts‘ëang was the son ofTsze-chang, one of Confucius’ disciples. Seeh Lewwas also a native of Loo, and belonged to the Confucianschool. Tsze-sze required great respect to be shown to him,and he had an attendant appointed by duke Muh always inwaiting on him, to assure him of the respect with which hewas cherished. The two others had not such attendants, butthey knew that there were always officers by theduke’s side to admonish him not to forgetthem.

Par. 4.

Thestranger’s thinking that he could retain Mencius,without any such demonstrations from the king, show howlittle store he set by the philosopher,—wasreally cutting him.

CH. XII.

HOW MENCIUS EXPLAINED HISSEEMING TO LINGER IN TS‘E AFTER HE HADRESIGNED HIS OFFICE AND QUITTED THECOURT.

Par. 1.

Nothing morecan be said of Yin Sze than that he was a man, a scholar, ofTs‘e. What he chiefly charged against Mencius wasthe lingering nature of his departure.

Par. 2. The disciple Kaou appears again in VII. PtII. xxi., from which it would appear that there wassomething not satisfactory about him.

Par. 3.

Mencius wasconstrained to leave Ts‘e by the convictionforced at last upon him that he would not get the king tocarry his counsels into practice.

Par. 7.

Compare withthis paragraph Confucius’ defence of Kwan Chungin Ana. XIV. xviii.

CH. XIII.

MENCIUS’ GRIEF ATNOT FINDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCOMPLISH FOR THEKINGDOM THE GOOD WHICH HE WAS CONSCIOUS HE HAD IN HIMTHE POWER TO DO.

Par. 1.

Ch‘ung Yu has appeared before in ch.vii. We find the saying which he here attributes to hismaster used by Confucius of himself in Ana. XIV. xxxvii.2.

Par. 3.

“Five hundredyears;”—this is speaking in round andloose numbers, even if we judge of the sentiment from thehistory of China prior to Mencius. “During thattime” would seem to mean that, in addition to thetrue king, all along the centuries there would be men ofdistinguished ability and virtue, but Mencius is generallyunderstood as referring to the men who should arise at thesame time with the true sovereign, and assist him by theircounsels.

Par. 4.

Nearly 800years must have elapsed from the rise of the Chow dynasty,when Mencius thus spoke. He seems for the time to have beenoblivious of Confucius; but he was merely a sage, and hadnot the power to carry out his principles on a grand scale.What had been wanting in his time, and was wanting still,was a true king.

Par. 5.

It cannot besaid that Mencius had not a sufficiently high opinion ofhimself. Compare with this paragraph the sentiments ofConfucius in Ana. IX. v.

CH. XIV.

THE REASON OFMENCIUS’ HOLDING MERELY AN HONORARY OFFICE INTS‘E, WITHOUT RECEIVING SALARY, WAS BECAUSEFROM THE FIRST HE HAD LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN THE KING, ANDWISHED TO BE FREE IN HISMOVEMENTS.

Par. 1.

Hew was in thepresent district of T‘ăng, in thedepartment of Yen-chow. Kung-sunCh‘ow’s inquiry, as appears from thestyle in the Chinese of Mencius’ reply, wassimply for information.

Par. 2.

Ts‘ung was the name of a city inTs‘e, the situation of which cannot now be moreexactly determined. There Mencius first met with king Seuen,and received an unfavourable impression ofhim.

Par. 3.

Perhaps“the collection of troops” wasconnected with Tse’s relations with Yen. See theconversation of king Seuen with Mencius in I. Pt II. xi.; atsuch a time Mencius could not well ask leave to quit theState. Another interpretation of the phrase has beenproposed, making it refer to the proposal to retain him inTs‘e, which is mentioned in ch. x., but this isquite unreasonable.

*

The TITLE OF THE BOOK is taken from dukeWăn of T‘ăng, who is prominent in thefirst three chapters of it. Wăn of course is the honorary orsacrificial title which he received after his death. We have already metwith him in confidential intercourse with Mencius, in chapters xiii. toxv. of Book I. Part II., the date of which must be subsequent to that ofthe chapters in this Book. Chaou K‘e compares the title ofthis Book with that of the 15th Book of the Analects.

CH. I.

THAT ALL MEN BY DEVELOPINGTHEIR NATURAL GOODNESS MAY BECOME EQUAL TO THE ANCIENTSAGES. ADDRESSED BY MENCIUS TO THE HEIR-SON OFT‘ĂNG.

Par. 1.

“Heir-son,” and“eldest son” were appliedindifferently to the eldest sons, or the declaredsuccessors, of the kings and feudal princes during the Chowdynasty. Since the Han dynasty,“heir-son” has been discontinued as adenomination of the eldest son of the emperor, the crownprince. Mencius at this time was in the State of Sung, andsome have tried to fix the date of the chapter to BC 317. Ts‘oo had so farextended its territories to the north, that it was thereconterminous with T‘ăng; but as theprince would be going to its capital it would not take himmuch out of his way to go through Sung. Possibly that routewas the most convenient for him to take, though the languageof the text would seem to be intended to give us the ideathat he took it in order that he might seeMencius.

Par. 2.

For the fullexposition of Mencius’ doctrine of the goodnessof human nature, see Book VI.

Par. 3.

We must supposethat Mencius had been told that the prince doubted thecorrectness of what he had said at their former interview;or it may be, the remark here preserved occurred in thecourse of a conversation, of the previous part of which wehave no record. “The way is one and onlyone” probably means the way of human duty, thecourse to which Mencius felt that he ought to call all whowished to learn of him.

Par. 4.

Mencius herefortifies himself with the opinions of other worthies. OfCh‘ing Kan we know nothing but what we read here.Whom he intended by “they” we cannotwell say. Yen Yuen was the favourite disciple of Confucius.Kung-ming E was a great officer of Loo, a disciple, first,of Tsze-chang, and afterwards of Tsăng-tsze. Theremark about king Wăn’s being hismodel and teacher would seem to have been made by the dukeof Chow.

Par. 5.

“Agood kingdom” is such an one as is described inch. iii. For the quotation from the Book of History, see theShoo, IV. viii. Pt I. 8. Mencius would seem to say that hislesson was all the more likely to be beneficial, because ithad perplexed and disturbed the prince.

CH. II.

HOW MENCIUS ADVISED THE PRINCE OFT‘ĂNG TO CONDUCT THE MOURNING FORHIS FATHER WITH EVERY DEMONSTRATION OFGRIEF.

Par. 1.

Duke Ting wasthe father of duke Wăn, the heir-son of lastchapter. Ting was his honorary epithet. Jen Yew had been theprince’s tutor.

Par. 2.

Onchildren’s feeling constrained to do their utmostin the mourning rites for their parents,—see Ana.XIX. xvii.

The remarks here attributed toTsăng-tsze were at first addressed by Confuciusto another disciple. Tsăng may have appropriatedthem, so that they came to be regarded as his own; orMencius here makes a slip of memory. I suppose that Menciusmeans to say that he could not speak of the mourning ritesof the princes from personal observation; but he could speakof the observances which were common to prince and peasant.“The three years’mourning,”—see Ana. XVII. xxi.“The garment of coarse cloth with the lower edgeeven” was that appropriate to the mourning for amother, and less intense than that used in mourning for afather, when the lower edge was all frayed, as if choppedwith a hatchet. It would appear, however, that either of thephrases might be used to denote mourning of the deepestkind;—see Ana. IX. ix.

Par. 3.

The lords ofT‘ăng were descended fromShuh-sëw, one of the sons of king Wăn,but by an inferior wife, while the duke of Chow, theancestor of Loo, was in the true royal line: and hence allthe other States ruled by descendants of king Wănwere supposed to look up to Loo. But we are not to supposethat the early princes of Loo and ofT‘ăng had not observed the mourningfor three years. The remonstrants were wrong in attributingto them the neglect of later rulers. What“History” or“Record” they refer to we cannot tell.The last clause of the paragraph is not by any means clear.Chaou K‘e mentions a view of it, which I havefelt strongly inclined toadopt:—“[Theprince] said, ‘I have received my viewfrom a [proper] source.’”

Par. 4.

In thequotations from Confucius, Mencius has blended differentplaces in the Analects together, or enlarged them to suithis own purpose:—see Ana. XIV. xliii.; XII.xix.

Par. 5.

“Theshed” was built of boards and straw, outside thecentre door of the palace, against the surrounding wall, andthis the mourning prince tenanted till theinterment,—see the Le Ke, XXII. ii. 16. Choo He,at the close of his notes on this chapter, introduces thefollowing remarks from the commentator LinChe-k‘e:—“In the time ofMencius, although the rites to the dead had fallen intoneglect, yet the three years’ mourning, with thesorrowing heart and afflictive grief, being the expressionof what really belongs to man’s mind, had notquite perished. Only, sunk in the slough of manners becomingmore and more corrupt, men were losing all their moralnature without being conscious of it. When dukeWăn saw Mencius, and heard him speak of thegoodness of man’s nature, and of Yaou and Shun,that was the occasion of moving and bringing forth hisbetter heart; and, on this occasion of the death of hisfather, he felt sincerely all the stirrings of sorrow andgrief. Then, moreover, when his older relatives and hisofficers wished not to act as he desired, he turned inwardsto reprove himself, and lamented his former conduct whichmade him not be believed in his present course, notpresuming to blame his officers andrelatives—although we must concede anextraordinary natural excellence and ability to him, yet hisenergy in learning must not be impeached. Finally, when weconsider with what decision he acted at last, and how all,near and far, who saw and heard him, were delighted toacknowledge and admire his conduct, we have an instance ofhow, when that which belongs to all men’s mindsis in the first place exhibited by one, others are brought,without any previous purpose, to the pleased acknowledgmentand approval of it:—is not this a proof that itis indeed true that [the nature ofman] is good?”

CH. III.

MENCIUS’ LESSONS TODUKE WĂN OF T‘ĂNG FORTHE GOVERNMENT OF HIS STATE. AGRICULTURE AND EDUCATIONARE THE CHIEF POINTS TO BE ATTENDED TO. THE FORMERINDEED IS FUNDAMENTAL TO PROSPERITY, AND A STATEPROSPEROUS BY ITS AGRICULTURE IS THE PROPLR FIELD FORTHE APPLIANCES OF EDUCATION.

Par. 1.

We must supposethat the three years of mourning have passed, and that theheir-son has fully taken his position as marquis ofT‘ăng, one of his first measureshaving been to get Mencius to come to hisState.

Par. 2.

By“the business of the people” we mustunderstand agriculture. The promotion of this required theattention of the government before all other things. Thatpromotion would involve the establishment of theagricultural system of the State on the bestprinciples.

For the lines of poetry, see the She, I.xv. I. 7. They are not much to the point; but the whole odeto which they belong is understood as showing how attentionto agriculture was the chief thing required in the kings ofChow.

Par. 3.

See I. Pt I.vii. 20. This paragraph shows how essential it was thereshould be a sure provision for the support of the people,and that therefore their business should not be remisslyattended to.

Par. 4.

interjects twoattributes of the good ruler, which are necessary to hiscarrying out the government which Mencius had atheart.

Par. 5.

This Yang Hoois the Yang Ho of the Analects, XVII. i. A worthless man, hemade the observation given with a bad object; but there wasa truth in it, and Mencius adduces it for a goodpurpose.

Par. 6.

By the Heastatutes, every husbandman—head of afamily—received 50 acres, and paid the produce offive of them, or one-tenth of the whole, to the government.This was called kung or tribute. Underthe Shang dynasty, 630 acres were divided into nine portionsof 70 acres each, the central portion belonging to thegovernment, and being cultivated by the united labours ofthe holders of the other portions. Under the Chow dynasty,in the portions of the State distant from the capital eighthusbandmen received each a hundred acres, and the same spacein the centre was cultivated by them all together for thegovernment. Yet they all united also in the cultivation ofthe other portions, and each one family received an equalshare of the produce the whole being divided into eightportions. Deducting twenty acres from the government portionwhich was given to the farmers for building huts on,c., there remained eighty acres, or ten acres forthe cultivation of each of the eight families; that is, inthe country parts of the States of Chow the amount of theproduce paid to the government was one-tenth. In the morecentral parts, however, the system of the Hea dynasty was inforce. According to the above accounts, the contributionunder the Shang dynasty amounted to one-ninth, but therewas, no doubt, some assignment of a portion of the publicfields to the cultivators, which reduced it toone-tenth.

Par. 7.

Nothing certainis known of the Lung who is here introduced, but he was“an ancient worthy.” He gives us animportant point of information about the way in which theamount of contribution according to the Hea system wasdetermined, and shows how objectionable the whole systemwas.

Par. 8.

See on I. PtII. v. 3.

Par. 9.

See the She,II. vi. VIII. 3. The quotation is intended to show that thesystem of cultivation according to the system of mutual aid,which Mencius recommended, though it was fallen in his timeinto disuse, had at one time obtained under the Chowdynasty.

Par. 10.

The pith ofMencius’ advice here is that education should beprovided for all, and that it might be provided withadvantage, when measures had been taken for the support ofall by husbandry. As to the names and characters of thedifferent institutions which he mentions, the discussionsare endless. When he speaks of the human relations beingillustrated by superiors, it is foreign to the object of theparagraph to suppose that he means the illustration of themin their personal conduct;—he means, I think, theinculcation of them by the institution of those educationalestablishments.

Parr. 11, 12

show whatduke Wăn would be sure to accomplish by followingthe advice which he had received. See the She, III. i. I.1.

Par. 13.

Peih Chen musthave been the minister employed by duke Wăn toorganize the agricultural system of the State according tothe views of Mencius. He is here sent to the philosopher toget more particular instructions for his guidance. On thenine-squares system of dividing the land, see the note onII. i. V. 2. By defining the boundaries must be meant, Ithink, the boundaries of each space of nine squares, andnot, as Chaou K‘e supposes, the boundaries of theState. How the unequal division of the fields would affectthe salaries of officers we have not sufficient informationon the subject to enable us to speak exactly. But it isdifficult to conceive of the division of the fields of aState on this plan, especially when it had become prettythickly peopled. The natural irregularities of the surfacewould be one great obstacle. And we find, below,“the holy field,” and otherassignments, which must continually have been requiring newarrangements of the boundaries.

Par. 14.

“Men of a superior grade”are men in office, who did not have to earn their bread bythe sweat of their brow. All other classes may be supposedto be comprehended under the denomination ofcountry-men.

Par. 15.

See the noteon par. 6.

Par. 16.

These 50 acreswere in addition to the hereditary salary alluded to in par.8. I call them “the holy field,”because Chaou K‘e and Choo He explain the term bywhich they are called by “pure,” andthe produce was intended to supply the means of sacrifice.Other explanations of the term have beenproposed.

Par. 17.

A family wassupposed to consist of the grandfather and grandmother, thehusband, wife, and children, the husband being thegrandparents’ eldest son. The extra fields werefor other sons of the grandparents, and were given to themwhen they reached the age of sixteen. When they married andbecame the heads of families themselves, they received theregular allotment of a family. In the mean time they werecalled “supernumerary males.” Otherexplanations of this phrase have beenproposed.

Par. 18.

sets forthvarious social and moral advantages flowing from thenine-squares division of the land.

Par. 19.

Under the Chowdynasty, 100 poo, or paces, made thelength or side of a mow, or acre: butthe exact length of the pace is not exactly determined. Somewill have it that the 50 acres of Hea, the 70 of Shang, andthe 100 of Chow were actually of the samedimensions.

CH. IV.

MENCIUS’ REFUTATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT THERULER OUGHT TO LABOUR AT HUSBANDRY WITH HIS OWN HANDS.HE SHOWS THE NECESSITY OF A DIVISION OF LABOUR, AND OF ALETTERED CLASS CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT. The firstthree paragraphs, it is said, relate how Heu Hing, theheresiarch, and Ch‘in Seang, his follower, soughtto undermine the arrangements advised by Mencius for thedivision of the land. The next eight paragraphs expose thefundamental error of Heu Hing that the ruler must labour atthe toils of husbandry equally with the people. From the12th paragraph to the 16th, Sëang is rebuked forforsaking his master, and taking up with the heresy of HeuHing. In the last two paragraphs Mencius proceeds, from theevasive replies of Seang, to give the coupde grace to the new perniciousteachings.

Par. 1.

All that weknow of Heu Hing is from this chapter. He was a native ofTs‘oo, and had evidently got in his seethingbrain the idea of a new moral world where there would be nolonger the marked distinctions of ranks in which society hadarranged itself. Shin-nung, “Wonderfulhusbandman,” is the designation of the second ofthe five famous emperors of Chinese præ-historictimes. He is also called Yen-te, “the Blazing emperor.” He is placedbetween Fuh-he, and Hwang-te, though separated from thelatter by the intervention of seven reigns, making with hisown over 500 years. If any faith could be placed in thischronology, it would place him BC 3272. In the appendix to the Yih King he is celebrated asthe Father of husbandry. Other traditions make him theFather of medicine also. Those who, like Heu Hing, in thetime of Mencius, gave out that they were his followers, hadno record of his words or principles, but merely used hisname to recommend their own wild notions. “Thebenevolent government” was the division of theland on the principles described in last chapter. Accordingto par. 4, the “hair-cloth” seems tohave been quite an inartificial affair. The sandals, which Ihave said Hing’s followers“made,” appear to have beenmanufactured by beating and tying the materials together,and not by any process of weaving. It has been supposed thattheir manufacture of sandals and mats was only a temporaryemployment, till lands should be assignedthem.

Par. 2.

Ch‘in Leang appears in par. 12 to havebeen a native of Ts‘oo, but to have come to thenorthern States, and distinguished himself as a scholar. Weknow nothing more of him, nor do we know anything ofCh‘in Seang and his brother Sin but what we aretold in this chapter. The “share,” theinvention of which is ascribed to Shin-nung, was ofwood;—in Mencius time, as appears in par. 4, itwas made of iron.

Par. 3.

The object ofHeu Hing, in the remarks given here, would be to invalidateMencius’ doctrine, put forth especially in par.14 of last chapter, that there must be the ruler and theruled, and that the former must be supported by thelatter.

Parr. 4, 5.

Menciusskilfully leads Sëang on here to an admissionwhich is fatal to the doctrine of his new master, that everyman ought to do everything for himself.

Par. 6.

Menciusreiterates here his doctrine, which indeed had been provedby the admissions of Ch‘in Sëang, thatthere are two classes, the ruling and the ruled, the formersupported by the latter.

Par. 7.

seems to carryour thoughts back to a time antecedent even to Yaou. We havepresented to us the world—all “underheaven”—in a wild, confused, chaoticstate, the attempts to bring which into order had not beenattended with any great success, and which was waiting fortoe labours of Yu, whom Yaou brought into the field. Menciusdid not go, nor ought we to go, beyond Yaou for the foundingof the Chinese empire. Then in par. 8 we have How-tseihdoing over again the work of Shin-nung, and teaching menhusbandry.

In regard to the calamity spoken of in thisparagraph, it is to be observed that it is not presented tous as a deluge or sudden accumulation of water, but asarising from the natural river-channels being all choked up,and disordered. For the labours of Shun, Yih, and Yu, seethe Shoo, Parts II and III. By the “MiddleStates” is to be understood the portion of thecountry which was first occupied by the Chinese settlers.The “nine streams” all belonged to theHo or Yellow river, and by them Yu led off a large portionof the inundating waters. The Këang is what wenow call the Yang-tsze. Choo He observes that of the riversmentioned as being led into the Këang only theHan flows into that stream, while the Hwae receives the Jooand the Sze, and makes a direct course to the sea. Hesupposes that there is some error in thetext.

Par. 8.

How-tseih,which is now received as a kind of proper name, was properlythe official designation of K‘e,Shun’s minister of Agriculture. Sëehwas the name of Shun’s minister of Instruction.For these two men and their works, see the Shoo, Part II.The “five kinds of grain” are paddy,millet, sacrificial millet, wheat, and pulse; but each ofthese terms must be taken as comprehending several varietiesunder it. “To men there belongs the way[in which they should go]”carries our thoughts to the duties of the five relations ofsociety, which are immediately specified. In my largervolume I have translated the clause by “Menpossess a moral nature,” but in the note havesuggested whether the original characters may not betranslated as the clause at the commencement of ch. iii.2,—“The way of men isthis.” Dr. Plath, in his work which I havereferred to in the Preface, insists that this is the onlycorrect meaning, and says that I have made a mistake inrendering by—“Men possess a moralnature.” That rendering, however, or the moreliteral one which I have now given, is the only one whichhas the sanction of Chinese critics and commentators. Theother which I suggested, and which Dr. Plath vaunts asentirely his, has never occurred to any one of them; and adeeper study of the text has satisfied me that it isinadmissible. This cannot be shown, however, withoutappealing to the Chinese characters, and the Chinesestructure of the whole paragraph. Fang-heun appears in thevery first paragraph of the Shoo as the name of the emperorYaou. The address here given, however, is not found in theShoo, and it was Shun who appointed Sëeh and gaveto him his instructions. Perhaps it was addressed to Shunhimself;—only on this supposition can I accountfor its introduction here.

Par. 9.

is anillustration of what is said in par. 6, that“great men have their proper business, and littlemen theirs.”

Par. 10.

Compare Ana.VI. xxviii.

Par. 11.

See Ana. VIII.xviii. and xix., which two chapters Mencius blends together,with the omission of some parts and alterations ofothers.

Par. 12.

Observe howhere Ts‘oo is excluded from the Middle States,the China proper of the time of Mencius.

Par. 13.

On the deathof Confucius, his disciples generally remained by his gravefor three years, mourning for him as for a father, butwithout wearing the mourning dress. During all that timeTsze-kung acted as master of the ceremonies, and when theothers left, he continued by the grave for another period ofthree years nominally, but in reality of two years and threemonths. On Yëw Joh’s resemblance toConfucius, see the Le Ke, II. i. III. 4.

Par. 15.

See the She,II. i. Ode V. 1.

Par. 16.

See the She,IV. ii. Ode IV. 5. The lines contain an auspice of what thepoet hoped would be accomplished by duke He of Loo; butMencius seems to apply them to the achievements of hisancestor, the duke of Chow.

Parr. 17, 18.

I supposethat Ch‘in Sëang made this finalattempt to defend the doctrines which he had adopted withoutwell knowing what to say. It is difficult to imagine thewildest dreamer really holding that the question of quality was not to enter at all intothe price of things.

“A boy of fivecubits” would be a boy of about ten years old,who might easily be imposed upon. See on Ana. VIII.vi.

CH. V.

HOW MENCIUS CONVINCED A MIHIST OF HIS ERROR THAT ALLMEN WERE TO BE LOVED EQUALLY, WITHOUT DIFFERENCE OFDEGREE, BY SETTING FORTH THE FEELING OUT OF WHICH GREWTHE RITES OF BURIAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OFONE’S PARENTS.

Par. 1.

Of Mih and hisdoctrines I have spoken in the Prolegomena. Mencius thoughtit was one of the principal missions of his life to exposeand beat back his principles.

Of E Che we have noinformation beyond what we learn from this chapter. From theTso Chuen we know that there were families of the surname Eboth in Ts‘e and Choo.

Seu Peih was adisciple of Mencius, with whom E Che seems to have had someacquaintance. Our philosopher, probably, was well enough,but feigned sickness that he might test, by interposingdelay, the sincerity of the Mihist’s wish to seehim. The same purpose was also served by his saying that hewould go to see E Che, when he was better. He did not,indeed, mean to do so; but having been told that he would doit, E Che, if he had not been in earnest, might have givenup his desire to have an interview.

Par. 2.

E Che showedhis sincerity in again seeking so soon after to have aninterview with Mencius. Mencius knew that in one point hispractice disagreed with the principles of Mih which heprofessed to follow, and resolved from that point tocommence his communications with him. According toChwang-tsze, Mih all his life-time did not sing, nor did hepermit mourning for the dead. He would have no outer coffin,and the inner one which he allowed was to be only threeinches in thickness.

Par. 3.

Up to this timeMencius had not seen E Che, nor does it appear that hesubsequently did so. The intercourse between them wasconducted by Seu Peih. E Che does not try to vindicate hissumptuous interment of his parents, but proceeds to stateand argue for the notable dogma of his master, that all menare to be loved equally. In support of this he refers to anexpression in the Shoo, V. ix. 9, where the prince ofK‘ang is exhorted to deal with the people as hewould do in protecting his own infant children. Menciusshows that that expression is merely metaphorical, and meantthat the people were to be dealt with with a very kindlyconsideration of their weakness and liability to err. Natureitself, he says, teaches us to regard with peculiar feelingsour parents and all related to us by blood. If we were toregard them and all others not related to us in the sameway, that would be to make us sprung from tworoots,—to be connected equally with our parentsand with other men.

Par. 4.

Mencius triesto confirm his position by showing the origin of burialrites in the most ancient times, that is, before the sageshad delivered their rules on the subject. Even then thenatural feelings of men made them bury their parents, andwhere some neglected to do so, remorse speedily supervened.What affection thus prompted in the first place was promptedsimilarly in its more sumptuous exhibition in the progressof civilization. If any interment were called for by nature,a handsome one must have our approbation.

Par. 5.

E Che wassatisfied of the truth of what Mencius had said, andprobably ceased to be a Mihist.

CH. I.

HOW MENCIUS DEFENDED THEDIGNITY OF RESERVE, BY WHICH HE REGULATED HISINTERCOURSE WITH THE PRINCES OF HIS TIME. Tounderstand this chapter, it must be borne in mind that therewere many wandering scholars in the days ofMencius,—men who went from court to court,recommending themselves to the various princes, and tryingto influence the course of events by their counsels. Theywould stoop for place and employment. Not so with ourphilosopher. He required that there should be shown tohimself a portion of the respect which was due to theprinciples of which he was the expounder. Compare chaptervii.

Par. 1.

Ch‘in Tae was one ofMencius’ disciples; and this is all that we knowof him. “The thing that might be done”was Mencius’ going to wait upon theprinces,—taking the initiative in seekingemployment from them.

Par. 2.

The foresterwas an officer as old as the time of Shun, who in the Shoo,II. i. 22; appoints Yih, saying that “he couldrightly superintend the birds and beasts of the fields andtrees on his hills and in his forests.” In theOfficial Book of Chow, XVII. vi., we have an account of theoffice and its duties. In those days the various officershad their several tokens, which the prince’s orking’s messenger bore when he was sent to summonany one of them. The forester’s token was a furcap, and the one in the text could not answer to a summonswith a flag. We find the incident mentioned by Mencius givenin the Tso Chuen under the 20th year of dukeCh‘aou;—but withvariations:—“In the 12th month, themarquis of Ts‘e was hunting in P‘ei,and summoned the forester to him with a bow. The foresterdid not come forward, and the marquis caused him to beseized, when he explained his conduct, saying,‘At the huntings of our former rulers, a flag wasused to call a great officer, a bow to call an inferior one,and a fur cap to call a forester. Not seeing the fur cap, Idid not venture to come forward.’ On this he waslet go. Confucius said, ‘To keep the rule[of answering a prince’ssummons] is not so good as to keep[the special rule forone’s] office. Superior men will holdthis man right.’ ”

Par. 3.

This is thedecisive paragraph in the conversation.

Par. 4.

Këenwas the honorary or sacrificial epithet of Chaou Yang, thechief minister of Tsin, in the time of Confucius. He isconstantly appearing in the Tso Chuen after the 24th year ofduke Ch‘aou; and Wang Leang was his charioteer,who appears in the Tso Chuen and the narratives of theStates also as Yëw Lëang, YewWoo-seuh, Yëw Woo-ching. I have not met with anyfurther reference to Chaou Yang’s favourite He.The ode in the Book of Poetry from which the quotation ismade is II. iii. V.

CH. II.

MENCIUS’ CONCEPTION OF THE GREATMAN.

Par. 1.

KingCh‘un was a contemporary of Mencius, who occupiedhimself with the intrigues of the time, designed to unitethe other States in opposition to Ts‘in or toinduce them to submit to it. He was an admirer of Kung-sunYen and Chang E, two principal leaders in those intrigues,and whose influence was very great on the fortunes of thetime. They were both of them natives of Wei, but weregenerally opposed to each other in their schemes. Yen was agrandson of one of the rulers of Wei, and hence his surnameof Kung-sun. He is often mentioned by the designation ofSenew;—see the “HistoricalRecords,” Book C. Chang E was perhaps the ablerman of the two.

Par. 2.

The Ritualusages, to which Mencius here refers, is the collectionknown by the name of E Le. Our philosopher throws variouspassages together, and, according to his wont, is notcareful to quote correctly. Obedience was the rule forwomen, and especially so for concubines or secondary wives.Mencius introduces them to show his contempt for Yen and E,who, with all their bluster, only pandered to the passionsof the princes.

Par. 3.

“Thewide house of the world” is benevolence or love, thechief and home of all the virtues; “the correctseat” is propriety; and“the great path” is righteousness.

CH. III.

OFFICE IS TO BE EAGERLYDESIRED; AND YET IT SHOULD NOT BE SOUGHT BY ANY BUT ITSPROPER PATH. It will be seen that the questioner ofMencius in this chapter wished to condemn him for thedignity of reserve which he maintained in his intercoursewith the princes, and which is the subject of the 1stchapter of this Part. Mencius does not evade any of hisquestions, and defends himself veryingeniously.

Par. 1.

Chow Seaou wasone of the wandering scholars of Mencius’ time.In the “Plans of the Warring States,”under the division of Wei, of which he was a native, heappears as an opponent of Kung-sun Yen of last chapter. The“Record,” from which Mencius quotesabout Confucius, whatever it was, is now lost. Every personwaiting on another—a superior—wassupposed to pave his way by some introductory gift; and eachofficial rank had its proper article to be used for thatpurpose by all belonging to it;—see the Le Ke, I.ii. III. 18. Confucius carried his gift with him, that hemight not lose any opportunity of being in office again.Kung-ming E,—see on Part I. i.

Par. 3.

In hisquotations here from the Le Ke, Mencius combines and adaptsto his purpose different passages, with more than his usualfreedom. Choo He, to illustrate the text, gives his ownsummary of the same passages thus:—“Itis said in the Book of Rites that the feudal princes hadtheir special field of a hundred acres, in which, wearingtheir crown, with its blue flaps turned up, they held theplough to commence the ploughing, which was afterwardscompleted with the help of the common people. The produce ofthis field was reaped and stored in the ducal granary, tosupply the vessels of millet in the ancestral temple. Theyalso cause the noble women of their harem to attend to thesilkworms in the silkworm house attached to the Statemulberry trees, and to bring the cocoons to them. These werethen presented to their wives, who received them in theirsacrificial head-dress and robe, soaked them, and thricedrew out a thread. The cocoons were then distributed amongthe ladies of the three palaces to prepare the threads forthe ornaments of the robes to be worn in sacrificing to theformer kings and dukes.”

Theofficer’s field is the“holy” field of Pt i. III. 16. Theargument is that it was not the loss of office which was aproper subject for grief and condolence, but theconsequences of it in not being able, especially, tocontinue the proper sacrifices;—as here setforth.

Par. 6.

By the“superior man” and his making adifficulty in taking office, Sëaou evidentlyintended Mencius himself, who, however, does not take anynotice of the insinuation. The method of contractingmarriages here referred to by Mencius still exists, andseems to have been the rule of the Chinese race from timeimmemorial.

CH. IV.

THE LABOURER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE: AND THERE IS NOLABOURER SO WORTHY AS THE SCHOLAR WHO INSTRUCTS MEN INTHE PRINCIPLES, AND GUIDES MEN IN THE PRACTICE, OFVIRTUE.

Par. 1.

P‘ăng Kăng was adisciple of Mencius. Whether his own mind was reallyperplexed as to the character of his master’s wayof life, or he simply wished to stir him up to visit theprinces and go into office, we cannottell.

Parr. 2—5.

We cannot but admire the ingenuity which Menciusdisplays here in the turn which he gives to theconversation. And he is right in saying that it is not thepurpose which we remunerate, but the work which is done forus. Yet his argument, as a defence of himself and his ownpractice, fails to carry conviction to the mind. Men ingeneral will give honour to him who holds the principles ofbenevolence and righteousness, inculcating them, moreover,and exemplifying them; but it does not follow that they arebound to support him, nor can he accept their supportwithout some loss of character.

CH. V.

THE PRINCE WHO WILL SET HIMSELF TO PRACTISE ABENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ANCIENTKINGS HAS NONE TO FEAR:—WITH REFERENCE TO THECASE OF A DUKE OF SUNG WHO CLAIMED THE TITLE OFKING.

Par. 1.

Wan Chang was adisciple of Mencius, the fifth Book of whose Works is namedfrom him. The ruler of Sung to whom reference is made wasYen, who raised himself by violence to the dukedom in BC 328, and in 317 assumed thetitle of king, when he gained some successes over the Statesof Ts‘e on the north, of Ts‘oo on thesouth, and of Wei on the west. He probably gave out at firstthat he meant to imitate the ancient kings in hisgovernment, but he was very far from doing so. In theHistorical Records, Book XXXVIII., he appears as a worthlessand oppressive ruler, and his ambition, which led him intocollision with the great States mentioned above,precipitated the extinction of the dukedom of Sung, whichtook place in BC 285. Wan Changgives a too favourable account of him to our philosopher,who, however, was not deceived by it.

Par. 2.

Compare I. ii.III. 1, and XI. 2. Poh, the capital ofT‘ang’s principality (though therewere three places of the same name), is referred to a placein the present district of Shang-k‘ew, in thedepartment of Kwei-tih, Ho-nan; and the capital of theearldom of Koh was in the district of Ning-ling in the samedepartment, so that Mencius might say well enough that Pohadjoined to Koh, and T‘ang might render to theearl of Koh the services which are mentioned. The passage ofthe Shoo referred to at the end is from IV. ii.6.

Par. 3.

“Toavenge the common men and women” is spokengenerally, but the words have a special application to thefather and mother of the murdered boy.

Par. 4.

Compare I. ii.XI. 2; and for the quotations from the Shoo, see IV. ii. 6,and v. Pt II. 5. The eleven punitive expeditions ofT‘ang cannot all be made out. In the Shoo and theShe we find only six. By a peculiar construction of the texthere, Ch‘aou K‘e makes them to havebeen 22; others have put them down at as many as27.

Par. 5.

The first halfof this paragraph is substantially a quotation from theShoo, V. iii. 7; but that Book of the Shoo is supposed to beimperfect, and to require considerableemendation.

Par. 6.

See the Shoo,V. i. Pt II. 6.

Par. 7.

Here is theconclusion of the matter. The king of Sung, having taken thesword in a different spirit from T‘ang and Woo,would perish by the sword.

CH. VI.

THE ALL-POWERFUL INFLUENCE OF EXAMPLE AND ASSOCIATION.THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING VIRTUOUS MEN ABOUT ARULER’S PERSON. This chapter may beconsidered as connected with thepreceding.

Par. 1.

Tae Puh-shingwas a minister, probably the chief minister, of Sung, adescendant from one of its dukes, who had received theposthumous epithet of Tae, which had been adopted as theirclan-name by a branch of his posterity. Chwang and Yoh weretwo well-known quarters in the capital of Ts‘e.They are both mentioned in the Tso Chuen under par. 6 of the28th year of duke Seang. Some will have it that Chwang wasthe name of a street merely, and Yoh of aneighbourhood.

Par. 2.

SëehKeu-chow was also a minister of Sung, recommended as tutoror adviser to the king by Tae Puh-shing. He was a man ofvirtue and acquirements,—a descendant of thelords of Sëeh, which principality dates at leastfrom the time of Yu.

CH. VII.

MENCIUS DEFENDS HIS NOT GOINGTO SEE THE PRINCES BY THE EXAMPLE AND MAXIMS OF THEANCIENTS. Akin to the first and other chapters ofthis Book.

Par. 1.

In Ana. XIV.xxii. we have an example of how Confucius, not then actuallyin office, but having been so, went to see the marquis ofLoo. He had a good reason, however, for doing so,independently of his having been in office. Mencius is neveraltogether satisfactory in vindicating his own conduct inthe matters affecting his intercourse with the princes,which staggered the faith of hisfollowers.

Par. 2.

Twan Kan-muh,or Twan-kan Muh (the surname and name are not clearlyascertained), was a native of Tsin, and a disciple ofTsze-hea. The prince whom he avoided in the way whichMencius refers to was Sze, the first marquis of Wei, knownas duke Wăn, who died in BC 386. He never drove pastTwan’s door, it is said, without bowing forwardto the front bar of his carriage in token of respect; butTwan stood out upon his purity, and would not go to seehim.

Sëeh Lew has been mentioned in II. ii.XI. 3.

Par. 3.

See Ana. XVII.i. In the incident which is here related few will seeanything more or higher than the ingenuity of Confucius ingetting out of a difficulty.

Par. 4.

We mustunderstand Tsze-loo as speaking of those men who gave theircounsels freely to princes and men of influence of whom theydisapproved.

CH. VIII.

WHAT IS WRONG SHOULD BE PUT ANEND TO AT ONCE, WITHOUT RESERVE, AND WITHOUTDELAY.

Par. 1.

Tae Ying-chewas a minister of Sung;—supposed by some to havebeen the same with the Tae Puh-shing of chapter vi. I thinkit likely they were the same. We must suppose that Menciushad been talking with him on the points indicated in hisremarks, and insisting on them as necessary to thebenevolent government, which, it was pretended, was beinginstituted in Sung. See I. ii. V. 3; II. i. V. 3; and III.i. III.

CH. IX.

MENCIUS DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF BEINGFOND OF DISPUTING. WHAT LED TO HIS APPEARING TO BE SOWAS THE NECESSITY OF THE TIME. Compare II. i. II.It would appear from that chapter and this that ourphilosopher believed that the mantle of Confucius had fallenupon him, and that he was in the position of a sage on whomit devolved to live and labour for theworld.

Par. 1.

Kung-too,—see II. ii. V. 4. There wassome truth, no doubt, in the common opinion about Menciusreported to him by Kung-too.

Parr. 2, 3.

Commentators are unanimous in understandingMencius to be speaking here not of the material world, butof the first appearance of men; and it is remarkable that inhis review of the history of mankind, he does not go beyondthe time of Yaou, and that at its commencement he places aperiod of disorder. Compare Pt i. IV. 7. The“nests” were huts on high-raisedplatforms. In the Le Ke, IX. i. 8, it is said that thesewere the summer habitations of the earliest men, who madecaves for themselves in the winter, and lived in them. Forthe words of the Shoo, see that work, II. iii.14.

Par. 4.

“Thewaters pursued their course in theirchannels;”—or, it may be,“the waters pursued their course through thecountry,” that is, no more overflowedit.

Par. 5.

The dynastiesof Hea and Shang have their history summed up here in verysmall compass. Yu and T‘ang, and various worthy,if not sage, sovereigns are passed over without ceremony.Does not the account thus given imply that down to the riseof the Chow dynasty the country was very thinlypeopled?

Par. 6.

Yen was a Statein the present district of K‘ëuh-fow,department Yen-chow, Shan-tung. From the specification of ithere, it must have been of considerable note and influence.Fei-lëen was a favourite minister of Chow, whoabetted him in his enormities. It would be vain to try toenumerate the “fifty States,” whichthe duke of Chow is said to have extinguished.“The tigers,” c., spoken ofhere, are said to have been those kept by the tyrant Chow,and those infesting the country, as in earlier times. Thetext of Mencius, however, produces a different impression onmy mind. He would have us think of much of the country asbeing, even in the time of the duke of Chow, still over-runby wild animals. See the Shoo, V. xxv. 6.

Parr. 7, 8.

WhatMencius says here about the “Spring andAutumn” is very perplexing, and the reader willfind the passages discussed at length in the first chapterof my Prolegomena to Vol. V. of my larger work. It isdifficult to believe that our philosopher can be speaking ofthe “Spring and Autumn,” which we nowhave; and yet the evidence seems complete that the presentclassic of that name is what came from the stylus of the sage.

Par. 9.

From Confuciusto Mencius was but a short time compared with that whichintervened between Confucius and the duke of Chow, and thatagain between the duke of Chow and Yaou and Shun. Theprocess of decay was going on with unexampled rapidity. OfYang Choo, as well as of Mih Teih, and of the principles ofthem both, I have spoken in the Prolegomena. See the wordshere attributed to Kung-ming E in I. i. IV.4.

Par. 10.

Compare II. i.II. 17.

Par. 11.

The way inwhich the duke of Chow’s driving away“all ferocious animals” is herementioned seems inconsistent with the view of the expressionof which I have spoken under par. 6.

Par. 12.

See on Pt i.IV. 16.

Par. 13.

Compare II. i.II. 17.

Par. 14.

Mencius seemshere to call on all disciples of Confucius to co-operatewith him in upholding the doctrines of the sage, and yet thesentence was perhaps intended to take away from the forcibleassertion to which he had given utterance, and by which heclaimed for himself a place in the line ofsages.

CH. X.

THE MAN WHO WILL AVOID ALL ASSOCIATION WITH, ANDOBLIGATION TO, THOSE OF WHOM HE DOES NOT APPROVE MUSTNEEDS GO OUT OF THE WORLD—ILLUSTRATED BY THECASE OF CH‘IN CHUNG OFTS‘E.

Par. 1.

K‘wang Chang and Ch‘inChung (called also Ch‘in Tsze-chung) were bothnatives of Ts‘e. The former was high in theconfidence and employment of the kings Wei and Seuen, anddid good service to the State on more than oneoccasion;—see on IV. ii. xxx. The latter, as welearn from this chapter, belonged to an old and noble familyof the State. His principles appear to have been those ofHeu Hing, mentioned in Pt i. IV., or even more severe. Wemay compare him with the recluses of Confucius’time. Woo-ling was a poor, wild place, where Chung and hiswife, likeminded with himself, lived in retirement. It wassomewhere in the present department of Tse-nan. ChaouK‘e thinks that it is said the plum washalf-eaten, to show how Mr Chung had really all but lost hiseye-sight.

Par. 2.

Mencius’ idea is that Ch‘inChung’s principles were altogetherimpracticable.

Par. 3.

Pih-e,—see II. i. II. 22, et al. Chih was a famous robber chiefof Confucius’ time, a younger brother of Hwuy ofLew-hea, celebrated by Mencius in II. i. IX. 2, et al. There was, however, it is said,in high antiquity in the time of Hwang-te, a noted robber socalled, whose name was given to Hwuy’s brotherbecause of the similarity of their course. “Therobber Chih” had come to be used like a propername.—As Chung withdrew from human society lesthe should be defiled by it, Mencius shows that unless hewere a worm, he could not be independent of other men. Eventhe house he lived in, and the grain he ate, might be theresult of the labour of a villain like Chih, or of a worthylike Pih-e, for anything he could tell.

Parr. 4, 5.

K‘wang Chang says that the lodging andfood of Mr Ch‘in were innocently and righteouslycome by; and it was not necessary to push one’sinquiries further back. Mencius does not reply to himdirectly, but throws ridicule on the self-denying recluse bythe ridiculous story which he tells; and concludes byreiterating what he had affirmed as to the impracticabilityof the man and of his principles.

CH. I.

THERE IS AN ART OF GOVERNMENT,AS WELL AS A WISH TO GOVERN WELL, TO BE LEARNED FROM THEEXAMPLE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ANCIENT KINGS, AND WHICHMUST BE STUDIED AND PRACTISED BY RULERS AND THEIRMINISTERS.

Par. 1.

Le Low, calledalso Le Choo, carries us back to the highest Chineseantiquity. He was, it is said, of the time of Hwang-te, andso acute of vision that at the distance of a hundred paceshe would see the point of the smallest hair. Kung-shoo,named Pan, was a celebrated mechanist of Loo, contemporarywith Confucius, if, as some think, he was a son of dukeCh‘aou. He is fabled to have made birds of bamboowhich could continue flying for three days, and othermarvellous contrivances. He is now the tutelary spirit ofcarpenters, under the name of Loo Pan or Pan of Loo; butmany critics contend that the Kung-shoo of Mencius and LooPan ought not to be identified. See the Le Ke, II. ii. II.21. Kwang, styled Tsze-yay, was a famous music-master ofTsin, a little before the time of Confucius. There is aninteresting conversation between him and the marquis of Tsinin the Tso Chuen, under the 14th year of duke Seang. Thepitch-tubes, here called “six,” bysynecdoche for “twelve,” were inventedin the earliest times, to determine by their various lengthsthe notes of the musical scale, and for other purposes. Seesome account of them under par. 8 in the Shoo, II. i.“The five notes” are the five fullnotes of the octave, omitting the semitones. The word“principles” in the phrase,“the principles of Yaou and Shun,”must be taken vaguely, and as meaning simply the wish togovern rightly, subsequently embodied in“benevolent government,” such asMencius delighted to dwell on in many chapters of theprevious Books. The use of“principles,” however, in this vagueand uncertain way, introduces an inconsistency and ambiguityinto the chapter. Mencius exhorts to follow the ways or“principles” of the ancient kings, andyet they are here said to be insufficient for goodgovernment.

Par. 2.

One of theearly commentators of the Sung dynasty refers to king Seuenof Ts‘e of I. i. VII. etal., as an instance of the rulers who have abenevolent heart, and to the first emperor of the Leangdynasty, ( AD 502—549),whose Buddhistic scrupulosity about taking life made himhave a reputation for benevolence. Yet the heart of the oneand the reputation of the other proved of little benefit totheir people.

Par. 3.

“Goodness alone” is thebenevolent heart without the method. “Lawsalone” is the benevolent government without theheart.

Par. 4.

See the She,III. ii. V. 2.

Par. 5.

According tothe views of Chinese writers, the lever was the first of the mechanical powers which was invented.“The lever revolving produced the circle. The circle produced the square. The square produced the line; and the line produced the level. ” On government as“not bearing to witness the sufferings ofmen,” see II. i. VI.

Par. 6.

The saying isfound in the Le Ke, X. ii. 10.

Par. 7.

The“therefore” expresses a consequencefrom what has been said in all the previous paragraphs.“High stations” should perhaps be“the highest station.” The ruler isindicated.

Par. 8.

is anillustration of the concluding clause of par. 7, showing howwickedness flows downwards, with itsconsequences.

Par. 10.

See the She,III. ii. X. 2.—From this paragraph Mencius hasthe ministers of a ruler in view. They have their duties toperform, in order that the benevolent government may berealized.

Par. 13.

Compare II.ii. II. 4.

CH. II.

ACONTINUATION OF LAST CHAPTER.—THAT YAOU ANDSHUN WERE PERFECT MODELS FOR RULERS AND MINISTERS, ANDTHE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT IMITATINGTHEM.

Par. 1.

The“human relations” are the fivespecified in III. i. IV. 8. “Thesages,” according to this par., were not onlymodels for rulers and ministers, but showed human nature inall its relations according to its ideal.

Par. 2.

We have noparticular account of how Shun discharged his duties as aminister, nor of how Yaou discharged his as a ruler. All ourinformation about them is comprised in a short space at thebeginning of the Shoo. We must believe that Shun was allthat a minister could be, and Yaou all that a ruler couldbe.

Par. 3.

This is asaying of Confucius for the preservation of which we areindebted to Mencius. By the course of benevolence isintended the imitation of Yaou and Shun; by its opposite theneglect of them as models.

Par. 4.

By rulers whocarry oppression to the highest pitch Mencius intends Keehand Chow, the last sovereigns of the Hea and Yin dynasties;by “The Dark” and “TheCruel,” he intends the twelfth and tenth kings ofthe Chow dynasty, who received those posthumous, butindelible, designations.

Par. 5.

See the She,III. iii. I. 6.

III.

CHIII. THE IMPORTANCE TO ALL, BUT ESPECIALLY TO RULERS, OFEXERCISING BENEVOLENCE.

Par. 1.

“Thethree dynasties” are of course those ofHëa, Shang or Yin, and Chow. It is a boldutterance, seeing that the dynasty of Chow was stillexisting in the time of Mencius; but he regarded it as oldand ready to vanish away.

Par. 3.

“Thefour seas” is here equivalent to “allbeneath the sky,” which means the empire orkingdom of China. See on the Shoo, II. i. 13.“The altars” are in the Chinese textspecifically those to the spirits of the land and the grain.The phrase is here equivalent to “hisState.”

Par. 4.

has for itssubject the princes of Mencius’time.

CH. IV.

WITH WHAT MEASURE A MAN METES IT WILL BE MEASURED TOHIM AGAIN; AND CONSEQUENTLY BEFORE A MAN DEALS WITHOTHERS, EXPECTING THEM TO BE AFFECTED BY HIM, HE SHOULDFIRST DEAL WITH HIMSELF. The sentiment is expressedquite generally, but a particular reference is to beunderstood to the princes of the time. The lines quoted arefrom the She, III. i. I. 6. They were adduced before in II.i. IV. 6.

CH. V.

THE GREAT THING TO BE ATTENDED TO IS THE CULTIVATION OFPERSONAL CHARACTER. I think this is the idea whichMencius had in mind in the words given here. The commonsaying to which he refers was good so far as it went, but itdid not go far enough. His course of thought is followed outto greater length in “The GreatLearning” See the 4th par. of the Confucian Textthere, and many passages of theCommentary.

CH. VI.

THE IMPORTANCE TO A RULER OF SECURING THE SUBMISSIONAND ESTEEM OF THE GREAT HOUSES IN HISSTATE.

The ruler’s “notoffending the great Houses” means his not doinganything that will excite their resentment, but commandingtheir loyal attachment by his personal character and hisadministration. Choo He refers, in illustration of thesentiment, to a story about duke Hwan of Ts‘ewhich we find in one of the works of Lew Heang. The duke, weare told, came one day in hunting to the district ofMih-k‘ew, and lighted on an old man, who said, inanswer to his inquiry, that he was 83. “Abeautiful old age,” said the duke.“Pray that I may be blessed with an equallongevity.” The old man accordingly prayed,“May his lordship, my ruler, live to a very greatage, despising gold and gems, and counting men hisjewels!” The duke said, “Good! But thehighest virtue is not found alone; good words must berepeated. Do you, Sir, pray for me a secondtime.” The man did so, saying, “Mayhis lordship, my ruler, not be ashamed to learn, nor disliketo ask his inferiors, have men of worth by his side, andgive access to such as will admonish him!” Theduke expressed his satisfaction with this prayer in nearlythe same terms as before, and asked the old man to pray forhim a third time. The man complied, and said,“May his lordship, my ruler, not offend againsthis ministers and the people!” The duke changedcolour at these words, and said, “I have heardthat a son may offend against his father, and a ministeragainst his ruler, but I have not heard of aruler’s offending against hisminister;—this prayer is not of a piece with thetwo former ones. Please to change it”. The oldman knelt down in obeisance, and then stood up and said,“This prayer is superior to the two former ones Ason who has offended against his father may apologizethrough his aunts and uncles, and the father can forgivehim. A minister who has offended against his ruler mayapologize through his ruler’s familiarattendants, and be forgiven. But when K‘eehoffended against T‘ang, and Chow offended againstking Woo, these were cases of rulers offending against theirnobles. There were none through whom they could apologize;the offences were never forgiven, and the retribution forthem continues to the present day.” The dukeacknowledged the truth of what the man said, and showed tohim great honour.

CH. VII.

THE WILL OF HEAVEN IN REGARDTO THE SUBJECTION OF ONE STATE TO ANOTHER IS VARIOUSLYINDICATED, AND DEPENDS ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICHEXISTING, THE RESULT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. APRINCE’S ONLY SECURITY FOR SAFETY ANDPROSPERITY IS IN BEINGBENEVOLENT.

Par. 1.

“Both these cases are [thelaw of] Heaven:”—Heaven, itis said, embraces here the ideas of what must be in reason,and the different powers of the contrasted States. This istrue; in a virtuous age, the greatest virtue will influencethe most, and in a bad age, the greatest strength willprevail. But why sink the idea of a Providential governmentwhich is implied in“Heaven”?

Par. 2.

Duke King ofTs‘e has been mentioned already in I. ii. IV. 4, et al. The affair here referred todoes not appear in the Tso Chuen, but is mentioned by LewHeang and other writers. The duke, it appears, purchasedpeace from Hoh-leu, king of Woo as he called himself, bysending his daughter to Woo to be married to his son. Woo,corresponding to the northern part of Cheh-keang and thesouth of Keang-soo, was still considered a barbarous Statein the time of Confucius, and the civilized States of Chowwere ashamed to have dealings with it on equal terms. Theprincess of Ts‘e mentioned here soon pined awayand died, and was followed to the grave ere long by herhusband, the old barbarian king showing much sympathy withher case.

Par. 3.

The smallerStates followed the example of the larger in what was evil,and yet were ashamed to submit to them.

Parr. 4, 5.

See theShe, III. i. I. stt 4, 5. We are to understand that theremark of Confucius was made on reading the stanzas of theode just referred to:—Against a benevolentprince, like king Wăn, the myriads of theadherents of the Shang dynasty ceased to be myriads. Theywould not act against him.

Par. 6.

See the She,III. iii. III. 5, with the remarks which I have there madein Vol. IV., of my larger Work, on thepassage.

CH. VIII.

THAT A PRINCE IS THE AGENT OFHIS OWN RUIN BY HIS VICIOUS WAYS AND HIS REFUSING TO BECOUNSELLED.

Par. 2.

The nameTs‘ang-lang is found applied to differentstreams. One is mentioned in the Shoo, III. i. Pt II. 8; butthe one in the text was probably in Shan-tung, in thepresent district of Yih, departmentYen-chow.

Par. 3.

The boy wassinging without any thought of the meaning which the sagecould find in his words, and of the expansion of thatmeaning which our philosopher would give.

Par. 5.

See on II. i.IV. 6.

CH. IX.

BEING BENEVOLENT IS THE SURE WAY FOR A RULER TO RISE TOTHE HEIGHT OF THE ROYAL DIGNITY; AND IS MOREOVER THEONLY WAY TO AVOID DEATH ANDRUIN.

Par. 1.

Choo Heillustrates what is said here about getting thepeople’s hearts by what we find in theBiographies of the Books of Han about Ch‘aouTs‘oh, who is mentioned in the Prolegomena to theShoo, in my larger Work, p. 16, in connexion with therecovery of some of the books of that classic through thescholar Fuh-săng. The tranquillity of thekingdom, according to Ts‘oh, depended on itsgovernment being administered in harmony with the feelingsof the people. “By those feelings,”said Ts‘oh, “people are desirous oflongevity, and the three kings cherished thepeople’s lives and allowed no injury to happen tothem. They are desirous of riches, and the three kings weregenerous, and subjected them to no straits. They aredesirous of security, of ease, c., and the threekings secured to them the enjoyment ofthese.”

Par. 5.

The down of themugwort burnt on the skin was and is used for purposes ofcautery. The older the plant, the more valuable for thisapplication. And the longer any disease in which it could beemployed had existed, the more desirable it was to get themost effectual remedy for it. The kingdom and each State hadlong been suffering from cruel and oppressive government,and their cure must come from a benevolent rule long pursuedand consolidated. This seems to be Mencius’idea.

Par. 6.

See the She,III. iii. III. 5. The lines immediately follow the twoquoted at the end of ch. vii.

CH. X.

AWARNING TO THE VIOLENTLY EVIL AND THE WEAKLY EVIL. Choo He concludes his comments here with thewords:—“This chapter tells us that theprinciples of rectitude and virtue do originally belong tohuman nature, while men extinguish them by their voluntaryact. Profound is the caution here conveyed by the sages andworthies, and learners ought to give the most earnest heedto it.”

CH. XI.

THE WAY OF DUTY IS NOT FAR TO SEEK; AND THE TRANQUILPROSPERITY OF THE KINGDOM DEPENDS ON THE DISCHARGE OFTHE COMMON RELATIONS OF LIFE. Compare the 12th,13th, and several other chapters of “The Doctrineof the Mean.”

CH. XII.

THE GREAT WORK OF EVERY MANSHOULD BE TO TRY TO ATTAIN COMPLETE SINCERITY INHIMSELF, WHICH WILL GIVE HIM A FAR-REACHING POWER OVEROTHERS. Compare the 17th and 18th paragraphs of the20th chapter of “The Doctrine of theMean,” which are here substantially quoted. Asthat chapter, however, is also found in the“Family Sayings,” Mencius may have hadthe fragmentary memorabilia of Confucius, from which thatcompilation was made, before him, and not the ChungYung.

CH. XIII.

THE GOVERNMENT OF KINGWĂN IN ITS ASPECT TOWARDS THE AGED ANDHELPLESS; AND THE INFLUENCE WHICH ANY GOVERNMENT LIKE ITWOULD PRODUCE.

Par. 1.

Pih-e;—See II. i. II. 22, IX. i.; III.ii. X. 3. What is here called the northern sea must be, Ithink, the northern part of the gulf of Pih-chihle.T‘ae-kung is Leu Shang, a great counsellor of thekings Wăn and Woo. He claimed to be descendedfrom one of Yu‘s assistants in the regulation ofthe waters, from whom he had the surname ofKëang; and some member of the family had beeninvested with the principality of Leu, so that Leu became aclan-name or second surname of his descendants. The legendgoes that king Wăn first met withT‘ae-kung as a fisherman on the banks of the Wei,which is not according to the account of Mencius here, whichwould make us suppose that he was living somewhere in theeast of the present Shantung when he went over to the sideof Wăn. King Wăn had been warned by anoracle that he was to meet with a powerful assistant on theday that he encountered T‘ae-kung, andaccordingly he said to him, “My grandfatherexpected you long,” which led to his being calledT‘ae-kung Wang, or “GrandfatherHope.” Though Pih-e and T‘ae-kung arehere represented as led to king Wăn in the sameway, their subsequent course and relation to the new dynastyof Chow were very different. Pih-e would not sanction theoverthrow of the Shang dynasty, while T‘ae-kungacted an important part in that achievement, and wasrewarded with the marquisate of Ts‘e.Wăn is here styled “Chief of theWest,” because he was appointed by the sovereignof Shang his viceroy or chief over all the States in thatpart of the kingdom. Wăn’s governmentis spoken of here only in its relation to the aged, but wemust consider that term as embracing other helplessclasses;—see the decription in I. ii. V.3.

Par. 2.

On this par.the “Daily Explanation”says:—“Moreover these two old men werenot ordinary men. Distinguished alike by age and virtue,they were the greatest old men of the kingdom. Fit to be sonamed, the hopes of all looked to them, and the hearts ofall were bound to them. All under heaven looked up to themas fathers, and felt as their children, so that when theywere moved by the government of king Wăn, andcame to him from the coasts of the sea, how could thechildren leave their fathers and go to anyother?”

Par. 3.

Compare whatConfucius says of the results which he could produce if hewere put in charge of the government of a State, in Ana.XIII. x., et al.

CH. XIV.

AGAINST THE MINISTERS OF THETIME, WHO PURSUED THEIR WARLIKE AND OTHER SCHEMES,REGARDLESS OF THE LIVES AND HAPPINESS OF THEPEOPLE.

Par. 1.

For the case ofK‘ëw or Yen Yew, see the Ana. XI. xvi.See also the last narrative of the Tso Chuen under the 11thyear of duke Gae.

Par. 2.

“Leading on land to devour humanflesh;” this is a striking variation of thelanguage in I. i. IV. 4, etal.

Par. 3.

Here we havethree classes of adventurers who were rife inMencius’ times, and who recommended themselves tothe princes of the States in the ways described, pursuingthe while their own ends, and regardless of the people. Someadvanced themselves by their skill in war; some by theirtalents for intrigue, forming confederacies among theStates, especially to oppose the encroachments ofTs‘in; and some by their plans to make the mostof the ground, turning every bit of it to account, but forthe good of the ruler, not of the people.

CH. XV.

THE PUPIL OF THE EYE THE INDEX OF THE MIND ANDHEART. This chapter is to be understood as spokenby Mencius for the use of those who thought they had only tohear men’s words to judge of them. Compare Ana.II. x.

CH. XVI.

DEEDS, NOT WORDS OR MANNER,NECESSARY TO PROVE MENTAL QUALITIES. The firstsentence is as general in the original as in thetranslation, but all the Chinese critics say that thestatements are to be understood of the princes ofMencius’ time, who made great pretensions tocourtesy and economy, of which their actions proved theinsincerity. But I think the propositions in the firstsentence are quite general. Our philosopher proceeds to makethe application of them.

CH. XVII.

HELP—EFFECTUALHELP—CAN BE GIVEN TO THE WORLD ONLY INHARMONY WITH RIGHT ANDPROPRIETY.

Par. 1.

Shun-yuK‘wăn was a native of Ts‘e,a famous sophist, and otherwise a man of note in his day.See his biography in the 126th Book of the“Historical Records.” He here tries toentrap Mencius into a confession that he did not do well inmaintaining the dignity of reserve, which marked him in hisintercourse with the princes. For the rule of proprietyreferred to, see the Le Ke, I. ii. 31.

Par. 3.

Choo He expandshere:—“The drowning kingdom can berescued only by right principles;—the case isdifferent from that of a drowning sister-in-law who can berescued with the hand. Now you, wishing to rescue thekingdom, would have me, in violation of right principles,seek alliance with the princes, and so begin by losing themeans wherewith it might be rescued;—do you wishto make me rescue the kingdom with the hand?” Ido not see the point of the lastquestion.

CH. XVIII.

THE REASON WHY A FATHER SHOULDNOT HIMSELF UNDERTAKE THE TEACHING OF HIS SON. Butthe assertion of Kung-sun Ch‘ow is not to betaken in all its generality. Confucius taught his son, andso did other famous men their sons. Of the statement in par.3. about the custom of antiquity I have not been able tofind any proof or illustration.

Par. 2.

“Thecircumstances of the case” here refer to that ofa stupid or perverse child.

Par. 3.

Thecommentators all say that “the exchanging ofsons” merely means that the ancients sent outtheir sons to be taught away from home by masters. It isdifficult to see what else the expression can mean, thoughthis is explaining away the force of the term“exchanged.”

CH. XIX.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVINGONE’S PARENTS, AND HOW THE DUTY SHOULD BEPERFORMED. IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE IT WE MUST WATCH OVEROURSELVES. ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASES OFTSĂNG-TSZE AND HISSON.

Par. 1.

By“services” we are to understand theduties of service which a man has to render to others, andby “charges,” what a man has to guardand keep. The “keeping one’sself” is the holding one’s self alooffrom all unrighteousness.

Par. 2.

“Theservice of parents” is represented as the“root of all other services,”according to the Chinese doctrine of filialpiety;—see the “Classic of FilialPiety,” passim. There ismore truth in the 2nd part of theparagraph.

Par. 3.

Seih was thefather of the more celebrated Tsăng-tsze, orTsăng Sin;—see the Ana. XI. xxv.“Nourishing the will” meansgratifying, carrying out, and fostering thefather’s wishes.

On par. 4.

Choo He quotes the following wordsfrom one of the brothersCh‘ing:—“To serveone’s father as Tsăng Sin did his maybe called the height of filial piety, and yet Mencius saysonly that it might be accepted as that virtue. Did he reallythink that there was something supererogatory inTsăng’s service?” PossiblyMencius may have been referring toTsăng’s-tsze’s disclaimerof being considered a model of filial piety. See the Le Ke,XXI. ii. 14, where Tsăng-tsze says,“What the superior man calls filial piety is toanticipate the wishes and carry out the mind ofone’s parents, always leading them on in what isright and true. I am only one who nourishes hisparents;—how can I be deemedfilial?”

CH. XX.

ATRULY GREAT MINISTER WILL DIRECT HIS EFFORTS NOT SO MUCHTO CORRECT ERRORS IN MATTERS OF DETAIL, AS TO CORRECTHIS RULER’S CHARACTER, FROM WHICH ALLBENEFITS WILL ACCRUE TO THE STATE. The sentiment ofthe chapter is illustrated by an incident related of Menciusin one of the Books of SeunK‘ing;—“Mencius having hadthree interviews with the king of Ts‘e withoutspeaking to him of any particular affair, his disciples weretroubled, but the philosopher said to them, ‘Imust first attack his wayward mind.’”

CH. XXI.

PRAISE AND BLAME ARE SOMETIMESGIVEN WITHOUT ANY PROPER GROUND FORTHEM.

CH. XXII.

WHEN A MAN IS REPROVED FORLIGHT SPEECH, HE DOES NOT SO READILY REPEAT THEOFFENCE. Choo He supposes that the remark here wasmade with some particular reference.

CH. XXIII.

BE NOT MANY MASTERS. Thetendency here rebuked indicates, it is said, aself-sufficiency, which puts an end toself-improvement.

CH. XXIV.

HOW MENCIUS REPROVED YOH-CHINGFOR ASSOCIATING WITH AN UNWORTHY MAN OF POSITION, ANDBEING REMISS ON WAITING ON HIMSELF, HISMASTER.

Par. 1.

Yoh-ching;—see I. ii. XVI. 2.Tsze-gaou was the designation of Wang Hwan mentioned in II.ii. VI. From that chapter we may understand that Menciuswould not be pleased with one of his disciples whoassociated with such a person.

We must understand thatTsze-gaou had gone on a mission from Ts‘e to Loo,and that Yoh-ching took the opportunity to go in his trainback with him to Ts‘e, pretending that he wishedto see his master Mencius.

Par. 2.

ChaouK‘e understands the word which I have renderedyesterday tomean—“formerly,”“some days ago.” It may have thatmeaning, but it is undoubtedly used for“yesterday,” in II. ii. II. 2, and thewhole par here has more force by giving to it that meaning.We see what respectful attention to himself Mencius exactedfrom his followers.

CH. XXV.

FURTHER AND MORE DIRECTREPROOF OF YOH-CHING. The terms used here for“eating and drinking” are bothcontemptuous,=our application of “theloaves and fishes.”

CH. XXVI.

SHUN’SEXTRAORDINARY WAY OF CONTRACTING MARRIAGE JUSTIFIED BYTHE MOTIVE, WHICH WAS TO RAISE UP POSTERITY TO HISPARENTS.

Par. 1.

The two otherthings which are unfilial are, according to ChaouK‘e, 1st, by a flattering assent to encourageparents in unrighteousness, and 2nd, not to succour theirpoverty and old age by engaging in official service. To bewithout posterity is greater than those faults, because itis an offence against the whole line of ancestors, andbrings the sacrifices to them to an end. In ii. XXX. 2,Mencius specifies five things which were commonly deemedunfilial, and not one of these three is amongst them. Thesentiment here is to be understood as spoken from the pointof view of the superior man, and moreover as laying down theground for the vindication of Shun.

Par. 2.

See the accountof Shun’s marriage at the end of the first Bookof the Shoo. From that we might give a different reason forhis contracting it from that which Mencius assigns. Heintimates that Shun’s parents were so hostile tohim, that they would have forbidden his marriage, if he hadtold them about it.

CH. XXVII.

FILIAL PIETY AND FRATERNALAFFECTION IN THEIR RELATION TO BENEVOLENCE,RIGHTEOUSNESS, WISDOM, PROPRIETY, ANDMUSIC.

Par. 1.

Benevolence,righteousness, c., are the principles of filialpiety and fraternal affection,—the capabilitiesof them in human nature, which may have endlessmanifestations, but are chiefly and primarily to be seen inthose two virtues.

Par. 2.

Theintroduction of the subject music here strikes us asstrange. A commentator tries to explain it in the followingway;—“Benevolence, righteousness,propriety, and wisdom are the four virtues, but Mencius hereproceeds to speak of music also. And the principles of musicare really a branch of propriety, and when the ordering andadorning, which belong to that, are perfect, then harmonyand pleasure spring up as a matter of course. In this way wehave propriety mentioned first and then music. Moreover, thefervency of benevolence, the exactness of righteousness, theclearness of knowledge, and the firmness of maintenance mustall have their depth manifested in music. If this chapterhad not spoken of music, we should not have seen the wholeamount of achievement.”

CH. XXVIII.

HOW SHUN VALUED FILIAL PIETYMORE THAN THE POSSESSION OF THE EMPIRE, AND EXEMPLIFIEDIT TILL HE WROUGHT A GLORIOUS CHANGE IN HISFATHER’S CHARACTER.

Par. 1.

The firstsentence is to be understood as of general application, andnot with reference to Shun simply. It is incomplete. Theconclusion of it would be somethinglike—“this would be accounted thegreatest happiness and glory.” Choo He and othersendeavour to find in the “getting to an entireaccord with his parents” the bringing them toaccord with what is right, so as then fully to accord withthem.

Par. 2.

Shun’s father is known in history bythe name of Koo-sow. The characters representing thosesounds both denote “blind” or rather“eyeless,” and K‘ungGan-kwoh says that the individual in question was so styledbecause of his mental blindness and opposition to all thatwas good.

I.

CH.1. THE AGREEMENT OF SAGES NOT AFFECTED BY TIME ORPLACE;—SHOWN IN THE CASES OF SHUN AND KINGWĂN.

Par. 1.

According toSze-ma Ts‘een, Shun was a native ofK‘e-chow, for the dimensions of which see thenote on the Shoo, III. i. Pt I. 2; and all the places herementioned are referred by him to the same province. Some,however, and especially Tsăng Tsze-koo of theSung dynasty, find Shun’s birth-place in thedepartment of Tse-nan, Shan-tung, and this would seem to besupported by Mencius in this passage. According toTs‘een, moreover, Shun died, when on a tour ofinspection in the south, in the wild ofTs‘ang-woo, and was buried in mount Kew-e, in thepresent district of Ling-ling, department of Yung-chow,Hoo-nan. The discussions on the point are numerous. It wasMencius’ object to place Shun in the east, andhis birth and life were in the country east from that ofking Wăn. He can hardly have intended to say thatShun and Wăn were themselves men of the wildtribes of the east and west, though his words, literallytaken, say so.

Par. 2.

K‘e-chow, or the plain of Chow at thefoot of mount K‘e, was in the present departmentof Fung-ts‘eang, Shen-se. Peih-ying is to bedistinguished from Ying, the capital of the large State ofTs‘oo. It was in the present district ofHeen-ning, department Se-gan of Shen-se; and there the graveof king Wăn, or the place of it, is still pointedout.

Par. 3.

“Thetwo halves of a seal:”—perhaps itwould be as well to say “a tally,” or“a token.” Anciently the kingdelivered, as the token of investiture, one half of a tallyof wood or of jade, reserving the other half in his ownkeeping. It was cut right through a line of characters,indicating the appointment, and the halves fitting eachother when occasion required was the test of truth andidentity. The formation of the character for the term showsthat the tally was originally of bamboo.

CH. II.

GOOD GOVERNMENT LIES IN EQUAL MEASURES FOR THE GENERALGOOD, AND NOT IN ACTS OF KINDNESS TOINDIVIDUALS;—ILLUSTRATED FROM THE HISTORY OFTSZE-CH‘AN.

Par. 1.

Tsze-ch‘an;—see on Ana. V.xv. The Tsin and Wei were two rivers of Ch‘ing,having their rise in the Ma-ling hills in the presentdepartment of Ho-nan, Ho-nan province. They met at a certainpoint, after which the common stream seems to have borne thenames of both its affluents. Mencius has reference to aconversation between Confucius and Tsze-yëw aboutTsze-ch‘an, related in the fourth Book of the KeaYu. The sage held that Tsze-ch‘an was kind, butonly as a mother who loves but does not teach her children,and in illustration of his view says that“Tsze-ch‘an used the carriage in whichhe rode to convey over those who were wading through thewater in the winter.”

Par. 3.

The 11th and12th months here correspond to the 9th and 10th of thepresent calendar. Mencius is referring to a rule for therepair of the bridges on the termination of the agriculturallabours of the year.

Par. 4.

“Removing people from theway,” when the ruler was going abroad, was also arule of the Chow dynasty; and not only did it take effect,in the case of the ruler, but also in that of many officersand women,—see the Official Book of Chow, VII.ix.

CH. III.

WHAT TREATMENT RULERS GIVE TOTHEIR MINISTERS WILL BE RETURNED TO THEM IN ACORRESPONDING BEHAVIOUR.

Par. 1.

“Ashis hands and feet;” i.e., with kindness and attention. “As his belly andheart;” i.e., withwatchfulness and honour. “As his dogs andhorses;” i.e., withoutrespect, but feeding them. “As any ordinaryman” is, literally, “as a man of theState,” meaning without any distinction orreverence. “As the ground or asgrass;”— i.e. trampling on them, and cutting them off.

Par. 2.

The rule hereis mentioned in the 13th Book of the E. Le, or“Rules of Deportment;” but the passageis obscure. The king falls back on this rule, thinking thatMencius had expressed himself toostrongly.

Par. 3.

“Fields” here is to betaken in the sense of revenue or emolument. The“thrice-repeated display ofconsideration” refers, 1st, to the escort as aprotection from danger; 2nd, to the anticipatoryrecommendations; and 3rd, to the long-continuedemoluments.

CH. IV.

PROMPT ACTION IS NECESSARY AT THE RIGHT TIME. HOWOFFICERS MAY KNOW WHEN THEY SHOULD LEAVE ASTATE.

CH. V.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE RULER’S EXAMPLE. See the 20th chapter of Part I. There we find the samestatements, intended to stir up ministers to seek to correctthe errors of their ruler.

CH. VI.

GREAT MEN MAKE NO MISTAKES IN MATTERS OF PROPRIETY ANDRIGHTEOUSNESS. What is proper and right at onetime, it is said, may not be so at another. Respect belongsto propriety, but it may be carried so far as to amount toflattery. These are among the instances which are given ofthe things mentioned in this chapter.

CH. VII.

IF THOSE WHO ARE MORE HIGHLYGIFTED THAN OTHERS DO NOT USE THEIR GIFTS FOR THEBENEFIT OF THOSE OTHERS, THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDEREDAS SUPERIOR TO THEM.

CH. VIII.

HE WHO ESCHEWS WHAT IS WRONGCAN DO WITH BOLD DECISION WHAT IS RIGHT. Inillustration of the sentiment here, Chaou K‘esays, “If a man will not descend to any irregularacquisition, he will be prepared to yield even a thousandchariots,” i. e., a largeState.

CH. IX.

EVIL SPEAKING IS SURE TO BRING WITH IT EVILCONSEQUENCES. Choo He supposes that the remark herewas made with some particular reference.

CH. X.

THAT CONFUCIUS KEPT THE MEAN. Compare with thisthe Doctrine of the Mean, XI. and XIII., and Ana. VII. xx., et al.

CH. XI.

WHAT IS RIGHT IS THE SUPREME PURSUIT OF THE SUPERIORMAN. Compare Ana. IV. x.

CH. XII.

A MAN IS GREAT IN PROPORTIONAS HE IS CHILDLIKE. Chaou K‘e supposesthat “the great man” is a ruler, andthat the sentiment is that he treats his people as hischildren, and does not lose their hearts. The meaning givenin the version is, no doubt, the correct one, and the sayingis sure to suggest to my readers the words of ourSaviour,—“Except ye be converted, andbecome as little children, ye shall not enter into thekingdom of heaven.” With Mencius “thechild’s heart” is the ideal moralcondition of humanity. Choo He says on thischapter:—“The mind of the great mancomprehends all changes of phenomena, and the mind of thechild is nothing but a pure simplicity, free from allhypocrisy. Yet the great man is the great man, just as he isnot led astray by external things, but keeps his originalsimplicity and freedom from hypocrisy. Carrying this out, hebecomes omniscient and omnipotent, and reaches the extremepoint of greatness.” We need not suppose thatMencius would himself have expanded his thought in thisway.

CH. XIII.

FILIAL PIETY IS MOST SURELYSEEN IN THE WAY IN WHICH THE OBSEQUIES OF PARENTS AREPERFORMED.

Some critics suppose, and withreason probably, that the saying here was directed againstthe Mihist practice of burying the dead with a sparesimplicity;—see III. i. V. 4. The funeral rites,it is said, are performed once for all; and if they are donewrong, the fault cannot be remedied.

CH. XIV.

THE VALUE OF LEARNINGTHOROUGHLY INWROUGHT INTO THE MIND. One may readscores of pages in the Chinese commentators, and yet not geta clear idea in his own mind of Mencius’ teachingin this chapter. Most of them understand the subject studiedto be man’s own self, and not things external tohim.

CH. XV.

Choo He says,and with reason apparently, that this is a continuation ofthe former chapter, showing that the object of the superiorman, in the extensive studies which he pursues, is notvain-glory, but to get to the substance and essence ofthings.

CH. XVI.

WHEN PEOPLE’S MINDSARE SUBJECT TO A PRINCE, THEY WILL MAKE HIM KING. HOWTHEIR MINDS CAN BE MADE SO SUBJECT. The firstutterance here is to me quite enigmatical. Paul’ssentiment, that “scarcely for a righteous manwill one die, yet peradventure for a good man some wouldeven dare to die,” occurs to the mind on readingthe first and second parts; but the native commentators makethe “nourishing” to have nothing to dowith men’s bodies.

CH. XVII.

THE WORDS WHICH ARE MOSTINAUSPICIOUS ARE THOSE WHICH ARE INTENDED TO PREVENT THERECOGNITION OF TALENTS AND VIRTUE. The words ofthis chapter may also betranslated.—“There are no words reallyinauspicious, but those which may really be consideredinauspicious,” c. The version which Ihave preferred is equally allowable.

CH. XVIII.

HOW MENCIUS EXPLAINEDCONFUCIUS’ FREQUENT PRAISE OF WATER, FROM THEPERMANENCE OF A SPRING-FEDSTREAM.

Par. 1.

See Ana. IX.xvi for instance of the sage’s praise ofwater.

Par. 3.

Here again themonths must be reduced to the 5th and 6th,—thoseof the Chow year.

CH. XIX.

THAT THE SMALL DIFFERENCEBETWEEN MEN AND ANIMALS IS PRESERVED ONLY BY SUPERIORMEN;—ILLUSTRATED INSHUN.

Par. 1.

Mencius has nottold us in what the small point distinguishing men frombirds and beasts consists. Chaou K‘e says that itis simply the interval between the knowledge ofrighteousness and the want of that knowledge. And this is sofar correct; but this difference cannot be said to be“small.” According to Choo He, men andcreatures have the le —theintellectual and moral principles—of Heaven andearth to form their nature, and the k‘e, or matter, of Heaven and earth toform their bodies, only men’s k‘e is more correct than that ofanimals, so that they are able to fill up the capacity oftheir nature. This seems to deny any essential differencebetween men and animals, what difference there is beingmerely corporeal and in degree.

Par. 2.

The firstpredicate of Shun is to me hardly intelligible; the lastseems to say that benevolence and righteousness were naturalto him, observed without any effort.

CH. XX.

THE SAME SUBJECT;—ILLUSTRATED IN YU,T‘ANG, WĂN, WOO, AND THE DUKE OFCHOW.

Par. 1.

In the“Plans of the Warring States,” it issaid that “E-teih made spirits which Yu tastedand liked, but he said, ‘In after-ages there willbe those who through spirits will lose theirStates;’ so he degraded E-teih, and refused todrink the pleasant spirits.” What we read in theShoo, III. iii. 6, gives some countenance to this story. Forhis love of good words, see the Shoo, II. ii.21.

Par. 2.

In illustrationof what is said of T‘ang, commentators refer tothe Shoo, IV. ii. 7, 8.

Par. 3.

For anillustration of Wăn’s fostering careof the people, see the Shoo, V. xv. 9, 10, and the She, III.i. VI., et al., for the othercharacteristic.

XXI.

CH. XXI. This chapter is said to continue thesubject of the two preceding, and to illustrate it by thecase of Confucius. I confess that I am not able to trace theconnexion. See what I have said on the difficultiesbelonging to several of the statements in the chapter in thefirst Book of my Prolegomena to the Ch‘unTs‘ëw.

CH. XXII.

MENCIUS INSINUATES THAT,THOUGH HE HAD NOT BEEN IN PERSONAL CONTACT WITHCONFUCIUS, HE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED HIS SUCCESSOR. This chapter is further said to continue the subject of thethree preceding, and to illustrate it in the case of Menciushimself. I should be inclined to make the former paragraphof ch. xix. a chapter by itself, and to read the otherparagraph, and chapters xx., xxi., and this one, as onechapter.

Par. 1.

Thirty yearsare held to cover one generation. We might suppose that theinfluence of “a sovereign sage” wouldlast longer than that of one who had no distinction ofauthority; but Mencius is pleased to say that it lasts onlythe same time.

Par. 2.

What Mencius ishere supposed to insinuate would seem to indicate that aspace of about five generations should be placed between himand Confucius.

CH. XXIII.

FIRST JUDGMENTS ARE NOT ALWAYSCORRECT. IMPULSES MUST BE WEIGHED IN THE BALANCE OFREASON, AND WHAT REASON DICTATES SHOULD BEFOLLOWED.

CH. XXIV.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEINGCAREFUL WHOM WE MAKE FRIENDS OF. The sentiment isgood, but surely Mencius might have found betterillustrations of it than those which hegives.

Par. 1.

On E see thenote to Ana. XIV. vi. Both Chaou K‘e and Choo Hestrangely explain P‘ang Mung as meaning Kea chung, E’s domestics. Isuspect there is an error in their texts, and that we shouldread Kea shin =E’s “steward.” He may havebeen employed by the Han Tsuh in the note referred to, to dothe deed. Kung-ming E has already been quoted by Mencius inIII. i. I., and ii. III. and IX. The idea of Mencius wasthat E was to blame for having made a friend of such a manas P‘ang Mung.

Par. 2.

In the TsoChuen, under the 14th year of duke Sëang, we havea narrative bearing some likeness to the account here givenby Mencius, and in which Yin Kung-t‘o and a YuKung-ch‘ae (or ts‘ze) figure as famousarchers of Wei. Yet the differences between Tso’snarrative and the text here are so great that we can hardlyreceive them as relating to the same passage ofhistory.

CH. XXV.

BEAUTY THROUGH CERTAINACCESSORIES MAY BE DISGUSTING TO MEN, AND WICKEDNESS, BYHOLY ENDEAVOUR, MAY BECOME ACCEPTABLE TOGOD.

Par. 1.

The lady Se, orif we translate the terms, “the westernlady,” was a poor girl of Yueh, called She E, ofsurpassing beauty, presented by the king of Yueh to hisenemy, the king of Woo, who became besottedly attached toher, and neglected all the duties of his government. She wascontemporary with Confucius. If we may receive the works ofKwan-tsze, however, as genuine, there had been a celebratedbeauty called “the western lady,” twohundred years before that time, and the lady of Yueh choseto assume her designation.

Par. 2.

ChaouK‘e and Choo He take the character which I havetranslated “wicked” in the sense of“ugly.” It may have eithersignification according to the context. I cannot butsuppose, however, that Mencius intended it in the sensewhich I have given, and that his object was to encourage mento repentance and well-doing. By the law of China it wascompetent only for the king to sacrifice to God, and thelanguage of our philosopher strikingly shows the virtue heattached to penitent purification.

CH. XXVI.

HOW KNOWLEDGE OUGHT TO BEPURSUED BY THE CAREFUL STUDY OF PHENOMENA. Menciushere points out correctly the path to science. The rulewhich he lays down is in harmony with the philosophy ofBacon; yet in China, more perhaps than in any other part ofthe world, the proper method has beendisregarded.

Par. 1.

“Natures” is to be takenhere quite generally, and not, as some commentators think,in the singular, referring to the nature of man. Possibly,Mencius may have had in view the discussions about humannature which were rife in his days; but he is speakinggenerally, and those discussions were only one perversion ofthe method on which he insists.

Par. 2.

By“chiselling or “boring” weare to understand the violent forcing out of conclusions,instead of pursuing the inductive method. Yu’soperations gave him abundance of trouble; what Mencius meansto say is that they were all in harmony with the nature andcircumstances of the waters, which he was labouring toreduce.

Par. 3.

Compare thelanguage of the 1st sentence of par. 9 in the 26th chapterof the Doctrine of the Mean. The solstices referred to arethose of winter. Most modern commentators hold that onesolstice is intended,—that from which the Chinesecycle dates its commencement, when the sun, moon, andplanets are all supposed to have been in conjunction atmidnight. This is not necessary.

CH. XXVII.

HOW MENCIUS WOULD NOT IMITATEOTHERS IN PAYING COURT TO A FAVOURITE, AND HOW HEEXCUSED HIMSELF.

Par. 1.

Many think thatthe death which gave occasion to what is here related wasthat of the officer Kung-hăng himself. The viewwhich I have followed is more in accordance with the Chinesetext. The master of the Right was the Wang Hwan of II. ii.6, and the Tsze-gaou of XXIV. and XXV. of the first Part ofthis Book. He was a man with whom our philosopher would havenothing to do.

Par. 3.

The officerswere not now “in the court,” but theyhad gone by the king’s order to condole withKung-hăng, and ought therefore to have observedthe rules which regulated their positions and movements whenin the court. On those rules, see the Official Book of Chow,XXII. iii. 1, et al.

CH. XXVIII.

HOW THE SUPERIOR MAN ISDISTINGUISHED FROM OTHERS BY THE CULTIVATION OF HISMORAL EXCELLENCE; AND HOW IN THAT HE HAS HIS REMEDYAGAINST THE MISCONDUCT OF OTHERS TOHIM.

Mencius shows here an admirable faith in thepower of goodness to produce a corresponding response inothers, and in the peace which the consciousness of havingacted in kindness and righteousness will produce under themost perverse treatment.

CH. XXIX.

HOW AN UNDERLYING PRINCIPLEWILL BE FOUND TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES IN THECONDUCT OF GREAT AND GOOD MEN OCCASIONED BY THEIRDIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES;—ILLUSTRATED IN THECASES OF YU, TSEIH, AND YENHWUY.

Par. 1.

See III. i. IV.7, et al. The thrice passing his doorwas peculiar to Yu, though it is here ascribed also toTseih, or How-tseih. Their age was not one of tranquillity,but the government in it was good, and they were employed tobring it to tranquillity.

Par. 2.

See Ana. VI.ix.

Parr. 6, 7.

The rulesanciently prescribed for dressing were very minute Much hadto be done with the hair, before the final act of putting onthe cap, with the strings tied under the chin. In the casein par. 6 all these rules are neglected. The urgency of thecase, and the intimacy of the individual with the partiesquarrelling, justified such neglect. This was the case of Yuand Tseih in relation to their age, while that in par. 7 issupposed to illustrate Hwuy’s relation tohis.—But Mencius’ illustrations arefor the most part happier than these.

CH. XXX.

HOW MENCIUS EXPLAINED HISINTERCOURSE WITH A MAN COMMONLY HELD TO BE UNFILIAL. THECASE OF K‘WANG CHANG.

Par. 1.

K‘wang Chang was an officer ofTs‘e, and had been employed in important militaryaffairs. He commanded the troops of Ts‘e in theoperations against Yen referred to in I. ii. X., et al. We have no account of theparticulars of his conduct which made him be regardedthroughout the State as unfilial, though perhaps a hintabout them may be obtained from a narrative in the“Plans of the Warring States,” in thefirst Book relating to Ts‘e. It is there saidthat king Wei of Ts‘e appointed K‘wangChang to command an army against Ts‘in, which wasthreatening the State. For some time reports were rife thatChang-tsze was playing the traitor, but king Wei refused tobelieve them, saying he was confident of the good faith ofhis general. At last news came of a great defeat inflictedon Ts‘in, and the king, being asked what had madehim so trustful of K‘wang Chang, said,“Chang-tsze’s mother offended hisfather, and was put to death by him, and buried in a stable.When I was sending him forth on this expedition, I saidthat, if he conducted it vigorously, I would on his returnbury his mother elsewhere, but he said that he might havedone so before, but his mother having offended his father,and his father having died without giving him anyinstructions on the point, he did not dare to remove thebody to another grave, lest he should be dealing wrongly byhis deceased father. If Chang-tsze is thus faithful to hisdeceased father, he will not be faithless to me.”Possibly, the alienation between Chang-tsze and his fathermay have arisen about the latter’s putting hismother to death. Whatever was the cause of it, it is evidentfrom what Mencius says that it did not seriously compromisehis character.

Par. 2.

“Gambling andchess-playing;”—see on Ana. XVII.xxii. But the chess-playing could not be the game analogousto ours, for the emperor of the Chow dynasty alluded to inthe note there as its inventor belonged to the latterdynasty of that name in the 10th century of ourera.

Parr. 3, 4.

ComparePart i. XVIII. 2.

Par. 5.

Readers notChinese will think that Chang’s treatment of hiswife and son was more criminal than his conduct to hisfather.

CH. XXXI.

HOW MENCIUS EXPLAINED THEDIFFERENT CONDUCT OF TSĂNG-TSZE AND TSZE-SZEIN OUTWARDLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. Compare chapterxxix.

Par. 1.

Woo-shing was acity of Loo,—90 le to thesouth-west of the present district city of Pe, departmentE-chow. Tsăng-tsze had here opened a school orlecture-room in the place, having, probably, as manysuppose, been invited to do so—to be“a guest and teacher”—bythe commandant. It was thus in the south of the presentShan-tung province. South from it, and covering the presentKëang-soo and part of Cheh-keang, were the Statesof Woo and Yueh, all at this time subject to Yueh.Shin-yëw Hăng is supposed to have beena disciple of Tsăng-tsze, and a native ofWoo-shing. The Shin-yëw of whom he speaks mustmean the head of his clan, or rather his House. When it wasin peril, Tsăng-tsze’s seventydisciples would have been abundantly able to cope with thegrass-carriers. That they did not attempt to do so, showedthat there was some reason for his conduct more than theobjectors to it saw on the surface.

Par. 2.

Tsze-sze ofcourse is Confucius’ grandson. He was living inWei, and sustaining office in it.

Par. 3.

We have here astriking illustration of the importance attached to theposition of a “teacher,” of which Ihave spoken in the Prolegomena.

CH. XXXII.

SAGES ARE JUST LIKE OTHER MENIN THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ORDINARYWAYS.

Ch‘oo was a minister ofTs‘e. The incident mentioned probably occurred onMencius’ first arrival in Ts‘e, andbefore he had any interview with theking.

CH. XXXIII.

THE DISGRACEFUL MEANS WHICHMANY TOOK TO SEEK FOR WEALTH ANDHONOURS.

Par. 1.

A“Mencius said” must have dropt out ofthe text at the beginning of this paragraph. All thecommentators seem to be agreed in this. The statement thatthe man “lived together with his wife andconcubine in the house” seems to be intended toindicate that he passed as a man of wealth, who was notengaged in trade, or any business that called him away fromhome. “Good-man” is equivalent tohusband; so “good-man” used to beemployed in Scotland.

Par. 2.

contains themoral and application of the narrative given in the formerparagraph.

*

TITLE OF THE BOOK. The Book is namedfrom Wan Chang, who is almost the only interlocutor with Mencius in it.He has been mentioned before in III. ii. V. The tradition is that it wasin company with Wan’s disciples that Mencius, baffled in allhis hopes of doing public service, and having retired into privacy,composed the seven Books which constitute his Works. The first Part ofthis Book is all occupied with discussions in vindication of Shun andother ancient worthies.

CH. I.

SHUN’S GREAT FILIALPIETY;—HOW IT CARRIED HIM INTO THE FIELDS TOWEEP AND DEPLORE HIS INABILITY TO SECURE THE AFFECTIONAND SYMPATHY OF HIS PARENTS, AND THAT HE NEVER CHERISHEDANY GRUDGE AGAINST THEM FOR THEIR TREATMENT OFHIM.

Par. 1.

The incidentabout Shun here mentioned is found in the Shoo, II. ii. 21.It is given there, however, as having occurred in the earlypart of his life; and this, as will be seen, makes itdifficult, even impossible, to reconcile what we read in theShoo about Shun with Mencius’ statements in thischapter.

Par. 2.

Shun’s dissatisfaction was withhimself, but this is at first kept in the background, andWan Chang either misunderstood it, and thought that hisdissatisfaction was with his parents, or chose to appear todo so. On what he says about the relations of a son with hisparents, see Ana. IV. xviii. Kung-ming Kaou is believed tohave been a disciple of Tsăng-tsze; andCh‘ang Seih again was Kaou’s disciple.The latter probably means to say that he understoodShun’s going into the fields to have been that hemight cultivate them in order to nourish his parents. Hethen quotes the words of the Shoo more fully than they arequoted in the preceding paragraph, and says he could notunderstand the grief which they described, his idea beingthe same which Wan Chang had that they must indicate thatShun was dissatisfied with his parents. “A filialson could not be so free from sorrow [as Seihseemed to imagine that Shun might havebeen];” that is, Seih understood thatShun did his duty in cultivating the fields for his parents,and imagined that he should then have dismissed all carefrom his mind as to any differences between them andhim.

Par. 3.

“Theemperor” is, of course, Yaou. See the Shoo, I.12, where Yaou gives his two daughters in marriage to Shun.It is stated there, however, that Shun had by that timetransformed his parents and his half-brotherSëang, and brought them to be in harmony withhim. This is the chronological difficulty in the account ofShun’s history in the Shoo and that given byMencius in this chapter.

CH. II.

DEFENCE OF SHUN AGAINST THE CHARGE OF MARRYING WITHOUTINFORMING HIS PARENTS, AND OF HYPOCRISY IN HIS FRIENDLYBEARING AND CONDUCT TOWARDS HIS BROTHER. DEFENCE ALSO OFYAOU FOR GIVING HIS DAUGHTERS TO SHUN, WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF SHUN’SPARENTS.

Par. 1.

The lines fromthe Book of Poetry are in the She, I. viii. VI. 2. But therule expressed in them was overruled by the higher duty toraise up posterity for one’sparents;—see IV. i. XXVI.

Par. 2.

As allnegotiations for the marriage of children should be betweenthe parents on both sides, Yaou should have communicatedwith Shun’s father; but here again the sameconsideration absolved Yaou from blame.

Par. 3.

Sëang, it is understood, was only thehalf-brother of Shun. On the death of Shun’smother, Koo-sow had married again, or raised a formerconcubine, whose son was Seang, to the rank of his wife. Thevarious incidents here mentioned are taken from tradition,or perhaps the Shoo was more complete in Mencius’days than it has come down to us. Sze-ma Ts‘eentells us that Shun got through the flames by screeninghimself with two bamboo hats, and that he escaped from thewell by a concealed passage which led from it. Seang callshim “the city-forming gentleman.” Thisis the most natural rendering of the terms, though it is notthat of Chaou K‘e. They say that wherever Shunlived three years, the people flocked to him, so as to forma too, —a city only inferiorto the capital city of a State.

Par. 4.

IfTsze-ch‘an had known that his pond-keeper hadeaten the fish, would he not have punished him? The case isnot in point to vindicate Shun’s treatment ofSëang, of whose vile designs he was well aware.His defence of his hero against the charge of hypocrisy isingenious, and amusing. Its fault is, as in other argumentsof Mencius, that he will make his point tooplain.

CH. III.

VINDICATION OFSHUN’S CONDUCT IN THE CASE OF HIS WICKEDBROTHER SEANG;—HOW HE BOTH DISTINGUISHED HIMAND KEPT HIM UNDER RESTRAINT.

Par. 1.

We mustintroduce only, I think, to bring outWan’s idea in what he says aboutShun’s treatment of Seang.

Par. 2.

Wan herechanges his ground, and proceeds to argue against Shun fromwhat Mencius had said. See Hwan-tow and the other criminals,and Shun’s dealing with them, in the Shoo, II. i.12. The old State of Pe is commonly referred to the presentdistrict of Ling-ling, department Yung chow, Ho-nan. But ifSëang had been placed there, he would have beentoo far away to meet the conditions of his intercourse withShun in the next paragraph.

Par. 3.

We have in theconclusion a quotation by Mencius from some book that is nowlost.

CH. IV.

VINDICATION OF A CHARGE AGAINST SHUN IN HIS RELATIONSWITH THE EMPEROR YAOU, AND WITH HIS OWN FATHERKOO-SOW.

Par. 1.

Hëen-k‘ëw Mungwas a disciple of Mencius, a man of Ts‘e, butderiving his double surname from Heen-k‘ew inLoo, where, probably, his ancestors had resided. Of thefirst part of the saying which Mung adduces two differentviews are taken. That which I have followed is given byChaou K‘e. Modern commentators generally take itas meaning—“The scholar of completevirtue cannot treat his ruler as a minister nor his fatheras a son;” and Julien in his translation ofMencius emphatically prefers this. I am satisfied that theolder interpretation is the correct one. According to thesequel of the saying, Shun appears with his face to thesouth, i. e., in the place of theemperor, and Yaou, “a scholar of completevirtue,” appears before him with his face to thenorth, i. e., in the place of homage orof a subject. So also does Shun’s father. Theseare intended as instances contrary to the principles in theold saying; and then Confucius’ words are broughtin to explain how such instances came to occur, and showthat they were abnormal. Mencius denies entirely the truthof the statement in the saying about Yaou, and proves itfrom the Shoo, II. i. 13, and an inference from words thatConfucius had once used.

Parr. 2, 3, 4.

Theinstance of Koo-sow’s appearing at the court ofShun could not be so easily disposed of. Mencius, however,was not without a good answer to his disciple, and turns theinstance against him satisfactorily enough. For the firstquotation in par. 2, see the She, II. vi. I. 2, and for theother, III. iii. IV. 3. For that in par. 3, see the She,III. i. IX. 3; and for the quotation in par. 4, see theShoo, II. ii. 21. The appearance of Shun before Koo-sow,however, which is there described, would seem to have beenbefore the former became emperor.

CH. V.

HOW SHUN GOT THE EMPIRE BY THE GIFT OF HEAVEN, AND NOTOF YAOU; AND HOW THE ACTION OF HEAVEN IN SUCH A MATTERIS TO BE UNDERSTOOD. VOX POPULI VOXDEI.

Par. 2.

Is it not plainthat here, and throughtout the chapter, by Heaven we mustunderstand God? Many commentators, however, understand by it le, “reason,”or “the truth and fitness of things,”excepting in the expression in par. 7, “ThereforeI said that it was Heaven,” where they think theterm = soo, “thedetermination of fate.” On this, LeP‘ei-lin of the present dynastysays:—“Ts‘ae Heu-chae (ofthe Sung dynasty) observes that by Heaven in this one placewe are to understand fate, and in allthe other places reason or the fitness of things. But this is agreat error. Throughout this chapter‘Heaven’ means the government of God,within which are included both reason andfate.”

Par. 6.

“Allthe Spirits” is here explained as “theSpirits of heaven, earth, the mountains, and therivers;” i. e., allspiritual Beings, real or supposed. The emperor was“the host of all the Spirits,” andShun entered, as conducting the government for Yaou, intoall his duties. But how the Spirits enjoyed the sacrificesthus presided over by Shun we are nottold.

Par. 7.

“Thesouth of the southern Ho” was, I apprehend, theancient Yu-chow, lying south from K‘e-chow, andseparated from it by the Ho. All the Ho might be calledsouthern, from where the river after flowing from the northto the south turns to the east.“Litigants” must indicate partieswhose contentions the ordinary authorities had not been ableto settle, and who therefore appealed to the decision of thesupreme authority.

Par. 8.

See the Shoo,V. i. Pt I. 7.

CH. VI.

HOW THE THRONE DESCENDED FROM YU TO HIS SON, AND NOT TOHIS MINISTER YIH; AND THAT YU WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDEREDON THAT ACCOUNT AS INFERIOR IN VIRTUE TO YAOU AND SHUN.ALSO, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A CHANGE OF THE RULINGFAMILY WILL TAKE PLACE, WHEN THE PRINCIPLE OF HEREDITARYSUCCESSION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, WITH REFERENCE TO THECASES OF E YIN, THE DUKE OF CHOW, ANDCONFUCIUS.

Par. 1.

Neither WanChang nor our philosopher seems to have clearly seen thething which was to be explained in connexion withYu,—the establishment of China as a hereditarymonarchy in his family. The passing of the throne from himto his son may have taken place as Mencius says; but how didit pass again from K‘e to his son? I have spoken on this point in theProlegomena to the Shoo. It might have been asked of Menciuswhy Yu presented Yih to Heaven as his successor, if his sonwere worthier than Yih. Yih appears in the Shoo, II. i. 22,as Shun’s forester. He assisted Yu in his labourson the waters (the Shoo, II. iv. I.), and is said to havebecome Yu’s principal minister after the death ofKaou Yaou. Yang-shing, we should judge, was the name of acity, or settlement in those early days. Many affirm,however, that it was the name of a mountain, and that it andmount Ke were near each other in the present department ofHo-nan, Ho-nan province.

Par. 3.

Confucius hadthe virtue, and more, according to Mencius, than the virtueof Shun and Yu, but no king of his time ever thought ofpresenting him to Heaven to succeed him on the throne. We donot know that any king knew of hisexistence.

Par. 4.

We have metwith E Yin in Mencius before,—in II. i. II. 22, et al.; and he is spoken of more atlength in the next chapter. The duke of Chow is thewell-known brother of king Woo. He might have got the thronewithout any change of the dynasty ofChow.

Par. 5.

See the Shoo,IV., Books iv. and v.

Par. 6.

The duke ofChow’s case was hardly analogous either to thatof Yih or of E Yin.

Par. 7.

Where and whenConfucius thus spoke, we do not know. T‘ang andYu are the dynastic designations of Yaou andShun;—see on the titles of the first and secondParts of the Shoo.

CH. VII.

VINDICATION OF E YIN FROM THECHARGE OF INTRODUCING HIMSELF TO THE SERVICE OFT‘ANG BY MEANS OF HIS SKILL INCOOKING.

Par. 1.

E Yin has beenmentioned already in II. i. II. and ii. II. 10. The popularaccount of him (found also in Sze-maTs‘ëen) in the time of Mencius was,that he came to Poh in the train of a princess of Sin whomT‘ang was marrying, carrying with him his cookingutensils, that by his skill in “cutting andboiling,” he might recommend himself to thatprince.

Par. 2.

Sin wasprobably the same territory with what was called Kwoh duringthe Chow dynasty,—the present Shen Chow inHo-nan, and not far from T‘ang’s seatin Poh. I have not been able to discover what were theantecedents to his farming life in Sin, nor how it was thathis merits and ability became known to T‘ang. Hewas evidently living the life of a recluse, at the time thatMencius brings him on the stage.

Parr. 4, 5, 6.

CompareII. i. II. 22, and below in Part ii. I. 2, 5. “Inmy own person,” in par. 5, must mean, I think,“by my ownefforts.”

Par. 7.

The concludingsentiment about the common object of all sages is worded soas to show the grossness of the story about EYin’s commending himself to T‘ang byhis skill in cooking.

Par. 9.

See the Shoo,IV. iv. 2; but the text there differs considerably from thatwhich Mencius gives. The meaning is that Keeh’satrocities in his palace at Muh led Heaven to destroy him,while E Yiu, in accordance with the will of Heaven, advisedT‘ang in Poh to take action againsthim.

CH. VIII.

VINDICATION OF CONFUCIUS FROMTHE CHARGE OF LODGING WITH UNSUITABLEPERSONS.

Par. 1.

Sze-maTs‘een, in his history of Confucius, says that onthe occasion when the sage made the observation in Aua. IX.xvii. that he “had never met with one who lovedvirtue as he loved beauty,” there was a YungK‘eu in the same carriage with the marquis ofWei, and his notorious wife. That Yung K‘eu was,no doubt, the ulcer-doctor of the text, and I am inclined tothink that there may be some error in the formation of thecharacters as we read them. If there be not, we must supposethat the marquis of Wei had a parasite so named, who hadbeen raised to his favour from the mean position of a curerof sores and ulcers. Of the same character was Tseih Hwan afavourite of one of the marquises of Ts‘e, andhis master of the eunuchs, in the time of thesage.

Par. 2.

Sze-maTs‘ëen gives Yen Chuh-tsow for YenCh‘ow-yëw, and says he was the elderbrother (or brother-in-law) of Tsze-loo. This is contrary towhat Mencius says. There were two traditions, probably, onthe point. On a later occasion Confucius lodged in Wei witha worthy officer called Keu Pih-yuh. Mei Hea is mentioned inthe Tso Chuen under the 6th year of duke Ting, and the 25thof duke Gae. He was a favourite with the marquis, and wishedby his proposal to ingratiate himself withConfucius.

Par. 3.

“Hwan ofSung;”—see on Ana. VII. xxii. Hwan isthe Hwan T‘uy of that chapter. After Confuciushad left Wei, he was proceeding to Ch‘in, and onthe way Hwan T‘uy made the attempt on his lifewhich is here alluded to. I do not know that the sage was incircumstances of distress after his arrival at the chiefcity of Ch‘in. Mencius must refer to what he didimmediately on reaching it. Ching-tsze, or “theofficer Pure,” was the honorary or posthumousepithet of the officer who was Confucius’ host,and Chow was the name of the last marquis ofCh‘in, known as duke Min. Ching-tsze, it is said,after the extinction of Ch‘in, went to Sung, andthere became minister of Works, and was afterwards known assuch; hence he is so styled here by Mencius, when referringto an earlier period of his life.

CH. IX.

VINDICATION OF PIH-LE HE FROM THE CHARGE OF SELLINGHIMSELF AS A STEP TOWARDS HIS ADVANCEMENT TO THE SERVICEOF DUKE MUH OF TS‘IN.

Par. 1.

Pih-le He waschief minister to duke Muh of Ts‘in, whose ruleextended from BC 658 to 618. Theincidents of his life will be found interestingly detailedin the 25th and some subsequent chapters of the“History of the various States,”though some of them are different from the statements ofMencius about him. According to Sze-ma Ts‘een,He, who had been a minister of Yu, after the subversion ofthat State by Tsin, followed its captive duke, and was sentby the marquis of Tsin, in the train of the eldest daughterof his house, to Tsin, where she was to become the wife ofduke Muh. Disgusted at being reduced to such a position, heabsconded on the road, and, fleeing to Ts‘oo,became noted there for his skill in rearing cattle. Duke Muhheard somehow of his great capacity, and sent toTs‘oo to reclaim him as a runaway servant,offering also to pay for him five rams’ skins. Hewas afraid to offer anything more valuable, lest he shouldawaken suspicions in Ts‘oo that he wanted to getHe on account of his ability; and on obtaining him, he atonce made him his chief minister. In the “Plansof the Warring States,” we have an account ofPih-le He’s introduction to duke Muh, more inaccordance with what Mencius said. He is there introduced asa borderer of Ts‘oo, who wished to get introducedto the service of duke Muh. With this purpose he soldhimself for five rams’ skins to a gentleman ofTs‘in, whose cattle he took care of. By and by heattracted the notice of duke Muh, who perceived his merit,and raised him to the distinction where he so abundantlyrepaid the duke’s kindness.

Par. 2.

See the historyof this transaction given from Kung-yang and Kuh-leang inthe Prolegomena to Vol. V., pp. 62, 63. Pih-le He, indeed,is not mentioned there, because, I suppose, he held hispeace at the time. Perhaps, “a team ofKëuh-ch‘an horses” shouldbe “a team of horses fromKëuh.”

CH. I.

HOW CONFUCIUS DIFFERED FROM,AND WAS SUPERIOR TO, ALL OTHER SAGES, POSSESSING ALLSAGELY QUALITIES IN FULL MEASURE, WHICH THEY DID NOTDO;—ILLUSTRATED BY AN EXHIBITION OFCHARACTERISTICS OF PIH-E, E YIN, AND HWUY OFLËW-HËA.

Par. 1.

Compare II. i.II. 22; IX. 1, 3: III. ii. X. 3: IV. i. XIII. 1. VI. ii. VI.2; and VII. i. XXII. 1; ii. XV. 1.

Par. 2.

Compare II. i.II. 22; ii. II. 10: V. i. VI. 4, 5; VII.: VI. ii. VI. 2. andVII. i. XXXI. 1; ii. XXXVIII. 2.

Par. 3.

Compare II. i.IX. 2, 3: VI. ii. VI. 2. VII. i. XXVIII.; ii. XV.1.

Par. 4.

Compare II. i.II. 22. I do not know that we have in any other ancientrecord an account of the incident mentioned here inconnexion with the departure of Confucius fromTs‘e.

Par. 5.

I have inventedthe adjective “timeous,” which wouldbe a literal translation of the original term, if it werecurrent in our language. Its meaning is that Confucius didat every time what the circumstances of it required to bedone.

Par. 6.

Theillustration of Confucius here is from a grand performanceof music, in which all the eight kinds of musicalinstruments were employed. One instrument would make“a small performance;” all joined,they made “a collected greatperformance,” = “a completeconcert.”

Par. 7.

The other sageshad, as well as Confucius, what might be compared to“strength,” but they were deficient,as compared with him, in wisdom or skill. We may compareeach of them, it has been said, “to one of theseasons; but Confucius was the grand, harmonious air ofheaven flowing through all theseasons.”

CH. II.

THE ARRANGEMENT OF DIGNITIES AND EMOLUMENTS ACCORDINGTO THE DYNASTY OF CHOW. Some of the statements ofMencius in this chapter are at variance with what we find onthe same subjects in the “Official Book ofChow,” and parts of the Le Ke. I will not,however, take any notice here of those differences, butreserve the discussion of them till I come to theexamination of those other Works.

Par. 1.

Pih-kung E wasa high officer of Wei, one of a family descended from dukeCh‘ing of that State from BC 633 to 597. Various members of it appearin the Tso Chuen. Its clan-name of Pih-kung or“Northern-palace” would be taken fromthe residence of its founder.

Par. 2.

It is animportant fact which Mencius here mentions, that before histime the feudal princes had destroyed many of the recordsaffecting the constitution and territories of their States.The founder of the Ts‘in dynasty had hadpredecessors and fathers in what he did in thisway.

Par. 3.

The fivedegrees of dignity here are degrees of rank, and the six aredegrees of position or official employment. The title“son of Heaven” is equally applicableto the Head of the nation, whether emperor or king, and isan emphatic designation of him as appointed by God.“Son of Heaven” is equivalent to“Heaven-sonned;” i.e., dealt with by Heaven as its son, and placed inthe highest station. See the She, IV. i.[i]. VIII. After the study of theShoo, the She, and the Ch‘un Ts‘ew, Ithink it is much better to adopt the titles of the fiveorders of nobility in the feudal kingdoms of Europe forthose which were employed for the five corresponding ordersin China, when it was in the feudal State.“Duke,” in Chinese kung, was the highest title of nobility. Kung gives the idea of“just, correct, without selfishness”“Marquis,” in Chinese how, was the second. How gives the idea of “taking care of,”and was given to the nobles dignified with it, as“guardians of the borders” of thekingdom. “Earl.” in Chinese pih, was the third. Pih conveys the ideas of “elder andintelligent,” “one by his intelligenceand virtue capable of presiding over others”“Viscount or count,” in Chinese tsze, was the fourth. “ Tsze ” means “ason,” but as a title means “to treatas a son,” giving the idea of“generally nourishing the people.”“Baron,” in Chinese nan, was the fifth. Nan isthe common designation for “amalechild” Composed of the characters for“field” and“strength,” it conveys the idea of“one adequate to office and labour.”According to Mencius the viscount and the baron wereconsidered equal in rank. All from the “son ofHeaven” downwards might be styled keun or “ruler.” Of the sixgrades of official position, the highest after the ruler wasthe minister,—in Chinese k‘ing. K‘ing is explained asmeaning “luminous,” “onewho can illustrate what is good and right.” Atthe court of Chow there were properly six k‘ing, though sometimes nine are spokenof. The Heads of the “Six Boards” maynow be considered as their successors. For a feudal Statethe number of k‘ing wasthree, but some of them claimed to have a greater number.Their appointment required the confirmation of the king. Thesecond official grade consisted of the “greatofficers,” in Chinese ta foo. tafoo may be translated by “greatsustainer.” The number of these was indefinite.As ta foo, they had no specific office,but might be employed by their rulers, as occasion required,being men of experience, recognized ability, andtrustworthiness. The other grades were made up of the threeorders of officers. In Chinese sze isexplained as “one fit to be intrusted with theconduct of affairs.” Its meaning is often givenas=“scholar;” and it isdifficult always to discriminate between the twosignifications. In fact a fundamental principle in theChinese nation has ever been that for office a certainamount of literary cultivation wasrequired.

Par. 4.

“Athousand le square,” i. e., according to some, “athousand le in breadth and a thousand le in length, making an area of amillion le. ” On this,however, the editors of the imperial edition of the king under the present dynasty,say:—“Where we find the term square, we are not to think of an exactsquare, but only that, on calculation, the territory wouldbe found equal to so many square le. So, in regard to the States of the various princes, we areto understand that, however their form might be varied bythe hills and rivers, their area in round numbers amountedto so much.” On an “attachedterritory,” see Ana. XVI. i. 1. These States weretoo small to bear the expenses of appearing at the royalcourt, and so the names and surnames of their chiefs werepresented by the greater feudal lords to whom they wereattached, and in whose train they also sometimesappeared.

Par. 6.

“Agreat State” was that of a duke or a marquis. Onecommentator says:—“The ruler had32,000 mow, the income of which wouldsuffice to feed 2,880 men. A minister had 3,200 mow, sufficient to feed 288 men. Agreat officer had 800 mow, sufficientto feed 72 men. An officer of the first class had 400 mow, sufficient to feed 36 men; one ofthe second class had 200 mow, sufficient to feed 18 men; and one of the lowest class had100 mow, sufficient to feed from ninemen to five men (see par. 9).” “Thecommon people employed in the public offices”would be the runners or policemen, and othersubordinates.

Parr. 7, 8.

“A State of the see ndorder” was that of an earl, and “asmall State” was that of a viscount or abaron.

CH. III.

THE PRINCIPLES OF FRIENDSHIP.FRIENDSHIP SHOULD HAVE REFERENCE TO THE VIRTUE OF THEFRIEND, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO ASSUMPTION IN IT ON THEGROUND OF ONE’S SUPERIORITY IN YEARS, SOCIALPOSITION, OR RELATIONALADVANTAGES.

Par. 1.

It is a fineidea of the Chinese that only virtue should be the bond offriendship, and the object of friendship should be thesupport and increase of one’svirtue.

Par. 2.

MăngHeen was the same who is mentioned in “the GreatLearning,” Comm. X. 22, q.v. Yoh-ching K‘ëw would be anancestor of Yoh-ching, one of our philosopher’sdisciples, mentioned in I. ii. XVI., etal. It appears from a passage in the“Narratives of the States,” IV. ix. 5,that the fact of MăngHëen’s having five friends was wellknown.

Par. 3.

Pe.—see on Ana. VI. vii. Pe was thecity of the Ke-sun family in Loo. Mencius is probablyspeaking of it when it had fallen under the power ofTs‘oo, and had been erected by it into the chiefcity of a small State dependent on itself. Tsze-sze was thegrandson of Confucius. Yen Pan is understood to have beenthe son of Yen Hwuy, Confucius’ favouritedisciple. Of Wang Shun nothing is known. Ch‘angSeih,—see Pt i. I. 2.

Par. 4.

DukeP‘ing (hon title, = “thePacificator”) was Pew, marquis of Tsin from BC 554 to 529. Hae T‘angwas a worthy of his State.

Par. 5.

Here we havethe highest style of friendship, where the object of thefriendship was called to share in the heavenly place,c. But was not this introducing an element whichdoes not belong to the idea offriendship?

Par. 6.

The meaning of“righteousness” here is what is“right in the propriety ofthings.”

CH. IV.

HOW MENCIUS DEFENDED THE ACCEPTING PRESENTS FROM THEPRINCES WHO WERE THE OPPRESSORS OF THE PEOPLE, AND MIGHTBE REPRESENTED AS ROBBERS OF THEM. Wan Chang doesnot speak expressly of Mencius’ own practice, butno doubt he had it in mind: and never was our philosophermore closely pressed by any of his disciples on what was astumbling-block to them,—his living so freely onthe presents of the kings and princes of his day, while yethe refused to take office under any ofthem.

Par. 1.

The subjectabout which the disciple asks here is not presents offriendship, but the gifts offered by superiors to scholarsnot in office, and the acceptance of them bythese.

Par. 3.

Mencius doesnot seem to meet fairly the question proposed by Wan Chang.We might have expected him to say that the scholar to whomthe gift was offered should decline it, boldly stating thereason why he did so. This, I think, would have been more inaccordance with the boldness of his own character. Hisdiverting the conversation to the subject of Confucius wasmerely an ingenious ruse.

Par. 4.

On the caseproposed by Wan Chang Mencius could only give the replywhich he does. For the quotation from the Shoo, see thatWork, V. ix. 15.

Par. 5.

The answergiven here by Mencius to the application made by Wan Changof the above case has in it a great deal of ingenuity. Wemay admit it on the ground of expediency; but a man of hischaracter and pretensions should have been more chary ofreceiving gifts from the princes of his time than he was.The practice in hunting which Confucius sanctioned is notwell understood. The view which I have followed in thetranslation is that given by ChaouK‘e.

Par. 6.

The practice inhunting which is alluded to had something to do with theoffering of sacrifices, and Confucius, by the measures whichhe took, wished to obviate the necessity for using any fleshso obtained in sacrifice, so that the practice might thusdie of itself, and fall into disuse.

Par. 7.

The text saysthat Confucius took service with Ke Hwan, and not with dukeTing, because the duke and his government were under thecontrol of that nobleman. I do not know that the sage everheld office in Wei, though Mencius here says so. When hefirst went to that State, its marquis was he who is herecalled “duke Ling,” and whoseincumbency extended from BC 533 to492. Ling allotted to Confucius the salary which he had hadin Loo. When he went to it the second time, the State wasprobably held by duke Ling’s son Cheh, whom hisfather had expelled. He was, we may suppose, called Heaou(“The Filial”) by his partisans afterhis death, but we have no “dukeHëaou” in the Annals of Wei. He wouldoffer liberal support to Confucius in order to get on hisside the influence of his character andname.

CH. V.

THAT OFFICE MAY SOMETIMES BE TAKEN ON ACCOUNT OFPOVERTY, BUT ONLY UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIEDCONDITIONS.

Par. 1.

The properreason for taking office is said to be the carrying out ofprinciples,—the truth and the right, and theproper reason for marrying is the begetting of children, orrather of a son, to continue one’s line, and notallow the sacrifices to one’s ancestors to bediscontinued.

Par. 3.

ChaouK‘e thinks that only one office is herespecified,—that of a gate-warder. It seems betterto understand two offices; that of a warder, one who“embraces the gate,” i. e., does not leave it, and that of a watchman,one “who beats his stick orrattle.”

Par. 4.

What Menciuscalls here “keeper of stores” appearsin Sze-ma Ts‘een as “an officer of theKe family.” Mencius’ authority in sucha case is to be followed. This was the first office whichConfucius held, when he was young and poor.Ts‘een also gives a different name for the secondoffice, but apparently having the samemeaning.

Par. 5.

This is to theeffect that he who takes office because of his poverty,should not be as in a higher position where he would have tospeak of high matters, and that he who is in a high officeand a frequenter of the court should make it his business tobe carrying out his principles.

CH. VI.

HOW A SCHOLAR UNEMPLOYED SHOULD NOT BECOME A DEPENDENTBY ACCEPTING PAY WITHOUT OFFICE, WHILE YET A PRINCE MAYSEND HIM REPEATED GIFTS, PROVIDED HE DO SO IN THE PROPERMANNER. There is, no doubt, here, as in chapteriv., a reference to Mencius’ habit of receivinggifts, and yet keeping himself aloof, from theprinces.

Par. 1.

In the Le Ke,IX. i. 13, it is said that a prince should not employanother prince, a refugee with him, as a minister, but it isonly from Mencius here, so far as I am aware, that we knowthat a prince, driven from his own territory, would findmaintenance in another State, according to a sort oflaw.

Par. 2.

This is makingthe case very simple.

Par. 3.

“Must be deemed wanting inhumility” is given by Julien as “ censetur expersreverentiæ ”. The idea is thatsuch a scholar puts himself in the position of one who has aregular office, and does not recognize his own unofficialposition.

Par. 4.

On the duke Muhand Tsze-sze, see II ii. XI. 3. See also ch. in. 3. Themodes of salutation in ancient times are thusdescribed:—“The ancients sat on theirmats on the ground. When one raised up his body erect,resting on the knees, that was a long kneeling. When thehead was bowed down to the hands, that was a pae or bow with the hands; when the hands were putto the ground, that was a pae or bow;when the head was put to the earth, that was a bowing withthe head to the ground. Tsze-sze is here described as makingfirst the third or profoundest obeisance, and then twicebowing with his hands to the ground. “An inferiorofficer” here denotes one of a mean orderemployed to convey messages.

Par. 5.

The method ofobeisance or acknowledgment described here is, it will beseen, the reverse of that employed by Tsze-sze in thepreceding paragraph. This method indicated, it is said, theacceptance of the gift, while the other indicated itsrefusal.

Par. 6.

See Pt i. I. 3, et al.

CH. VII.

WHY A SCHOLAR NOT IN OFFICESHOULD DECLINE TO GO TO SEE ANY OF THE PRINCES, WHENCALLED BY THEM. Wan Chang evidently had his master,and the way in which he kept himself aloof from the princes,in his mind here, though he does not say so. Ourphilosopher’s practice in this respect was matterof surprise and of frequent inquiry to his disciples. SeeIII. ii. I., et al.

Par. 1.

Every one maybe called a minister ( shin ), as being asubject, and bound to serve the ruler. This is the meaningof the term in the first two instances of its occurrence inthis paragraph. In the other instance it denotes those whoare ministers holding office. On the“introductory present,” see III. ii.III.

Par. 3.

Here andthroughout this chapter we see in a striking manner howMencius magnified his position as a scholar andteacher.

Par. 5.

See III. ii. I.2.

Par. 8.

See the She,II. v. IX. 1. Righteousness is the way which all men oughtto be found in, and propriety the door by which they shouldenter it. Many, however, forsake the way, and try to enterby other doors. But not so with the superior man; andtherefore rulers in dealing with him should be speciallyobservant of righteousness and propriety. This seems to bethe under current of thought in this paragraph. And so itseems, as indicated in the words of the ode quoted, it oncewas in the best days of the Chow. The way to Chow was as itis here described, because the ways of the kings of Chow hadbeen fashioned according to righteousness andpropriety.

Par. 9.

See Ana. X.xiii. 4.

CH. VIII.

HOW FRIENDSHIP WILL FIND ITSCONGENIAL ASSOCIATIONS ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OFPLACE AND TIME, AND WE MAY MAKE OUR FRIENDS OF THE GREATAND GOOD OF ANTIQUITY BY STUDYING THEIR POEMS AND OTHERBOOKS, AND HISTORY.

Par. 1.

The eminence ofthe most excellent scholars specified attracts others tothem, and they have thus the opportunity of learning andadding to their own excellence, which no inflation arisingfrom their own superiority prevents them from doing. It is apity that the Chinese mind should be so unwilling to admitthat excellence may be found out ofChina.

Par. 2.

It is certainlya discriminating study of the worthies of antiquity whichMencius here recommends.

CH. IX.

THE DUTIES OF MINISTERS TO THEIR RULER. ACCORDING ASTHEY ARE OF THE SAME SURNAME WITH HIM, OR A DIFFERENT,THAT IS, ACCORDING AS THEY ARE RELATED TO HIM ORNOT.

Par. 1.

By“great faults” is meant such asendangered the State, or at least the safety of the rulingHouse. It seems to be intimated that of other and lesserfaults these ministers would not take any notice. In par. 4all the ruler’s faults, small or great, comeunder the notice and criticism of his otherministers.

Parr. 2, 3.

It was notsurprising that king Seuen should be annoyed and surprisedat the words of Mencius. They certainly afford a strikinginstance of the boldness of our philosopher’sthinking, and of the decided manner in which he gaveexpression to his sentiments. All the members of the familyof which the ruler is the Head may be said to have aninterest in the throne, but to suggest to them that it maybecome their duty to displace the actual occupant of it, andsubstitute another of their number in his place, may openthe way to confusion and disaster.

*

TITLE OF THIS BOOK. Kaou-tsze, i. e., Mr Kaou, or the scholar Kaou, who appears inthe first and other chapters questioning Mencius, gives his name to theBook. He is probably the same who is referred to by our philosopher inII. Part I. ii. 2. Chaou K‘e tells us that his name wasPuh-hae, seeming to identity him with Haou-săng Puh-hae ofVII. Pt II. xxv. He adds that Kaou, while a student under Mencius, gavehimself also to the examination of the doctrines of the heresiarch Mih(III. Pt I. v., Pt II. ix. 9); and from a passage in Mih’swritings this is not unlikely, but the name of Kaou appears there asShing.

Kaou appears from this Book to have been much perplexedrespecting the real character of human nature in its relations to goodand evil, which is the subject mainly discussed throughout it; and it isto the view of human nature as here developed that Mencius is chieflyindebted for his place among the sages of his country. “TheBook,” says the Relish and Root of the four Books,“treats first of the nature; then of the heart; and then of instruction: the whole being analogous to the lessons in thedoctrine of the Mean. The second Part continues to treat of the samesubject, and a resemblance will generally be found between the views ofthe parties there combated and those of the scholarKaou.”

CH. I.

THAT BENEVOLENCE ANDRIGHTEOUSNESS ARE NO UNNATURAL AND FORCED PRODUCTS OFHUMAN NATURE. Choo He says that there underlies thewords of Kaou here the view of human nature afterwardsinsisted on by the philosopher Seun (see the prolegomena ), that human nature is evil. But Kaoumight have disallowed such an induction from his words. Seunmaintained that human nature was positively evil, and thatany good in it was an artificial product. Kaou perhaps wouldhave contended that it was like a tabularasa, on which either good or evil might be made toappear.

Par. 2.

“Inaccordance with the nature of the willow tree;” i. e., leaving its natureuntouched, doing no violence to it. “Will youalso do violence and injury to aman?”— i. e. to a man’s nature, tohumanity.

CH. II.

THAT MAN’S NATURE IS NOT INDIFFERENT TO GOODAND EVIL. ITS PROPER TENDENCY IS TO GOOD. Here, itseems to me, Kaou more clearly explains what he meant in thelast chapter. Choo He says, however, that his idea here wasakin to that of Yang Heung, a writer about the beginning ofour era. Yang held that good and evil were mixed in thenature of man, and that the passion-nature was like a horsedrawing the man, according as it moved, either to good or toevil. Kaou, however, appears to have differed from him inthinking that there was neither good nor evil in the natureitself.

Par. 1.

The phrasewhich I have translated—“waterwhirling round” is explained in the dictionariesas “water flowing rapidly,”“water flowing quickly over sand;” andhence Julien renders it by “ rapide fluens aqua. ” So also Williams.Chaou K‘e, followed by Choo He, gives the meaningwhich I have adopted.

Parr. 2, 3.

Choo Hesays:—“This chapter tells us that thenature is properly good, so that if we accord with it, weshall do nothing but what is good; and that it is properlywithout evil, so that we must violate it before we do whatis evil. It shows that the nature is not properly without adecided character so that it may do good or evilindifferently.”

CH. III.

THE NATURE IS NOT TO BECONFOUNDED WITH THE PHÆNOMENA OF LIFE. Choo He says that “by life is intended thatwhereby men and animals perceive and move,” andhe adds that Kaou’s sentiment was analogous tothat of the Buddhists, who made “doing andmoving” to be the nature. We must understand, Ithink, by life here thephænomena of the life of sensation, andKaou’s idea led to the ridiculous conclusion thatwherever there were those phænomena the nature ofthe subjects is the same We find it difficult to placeourselves in sympathy with him in this conversation, andalso to follow Mencius in passing from the second paragraphto the third. His questions in the former refer to thequalities of inanimate things, and then he jumps to othersabout the nature of animals and of man.

CH. IV.

THAT THE DISCRIMINATION OF WHAT IS RIGHT, AS WELL ASTHE FEELING OF LOVE OR BENEVOLENCE, IS INTERNAL, AND NOTMERELY DETERMINED BY WHAT IS EXTERNAL TOUS.

Par. 1.

The firstremark of Kaou here would seem to be intended to explain hisstatement in the preceding chapter that “life wasnature.” Then he seems to give in to the view ofMencius that benevolence proceeds from a principle withinus, just as we are moved by an internal feeling to food andsexual pleasure, but he still contends that it is not so inthe exercise of righteousness;—by which termChinese writers mean, “the conduct proper inreference to men and things without us, and the showing itto them. This meaning of“righteousness” is put out by Menciusat the close of the third paragraph.

Par. 4.

“Aman of Ts‘in,” “a man ofTs‘oo;”— i. e., people indifferent to me, strangers tome.

Par. 5.

Menciussilences his opponent by showing that the difficulty whichhe alleged in regard to righteousness would attach also tothe enjoyment of food, which he had himself allowed, at theoutset of the conversation, to be internal, from the inwardconstitution of our nature.

CH. V.

THE SAME SUBJECT:—A DIFFICULTY OBVIATED INTHE WAY OF THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISCRIMINATION OFWHAT IS RIGHT IS FROM WITHIN.

Par. 1.

MăngKe was, probably, a younger brother of MăngChung, who appears in II. Pt II ii. 3 in close attendance onMencius. He had heard the previous conversation with Kaou,or heard of it; and feeling some doubts on the subject, heapplied to the disciple Kung-too.

Par. 3.

“Forwhom would you pour out spiritsfirst?”— i.e., at a feast. Courtesy then required that thehonour should be given to a stranger; but Măng Kedoes not consider this, but maintains that the manifestationof respect varied with the individual, and was therefore notfrom within.

Par. 4.

“Personating a deceasedancestor;”—see the Prolegomena to Vol.IV. of my larger Work, pp. 135, 136, on the strange customunder the Chow dynasty of personating a deceased ancestor ata sacrificial feast by one of the descendants of thefamily.

Par. 5.

Kung-too herebeats down the cavilling of Măng Ke as Menciusdid that of Kaou in the conclusion of lastchapter.

CH. VI.

VARIOUS VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE, AND MENCIUS’VINDICATION OF HIS OWN DOCTRINE, THAT IT ISGOOD.

Par. 1.

Choo He saysthat this view had been revived near his own times by thefamous Soo Tung-po, and by Hoo Woo-fung, a son of the morecelebrated Hoo Wăn-ting.

Par. 2.

Kaou had alsogiven this view,—in the second chapter.Wăn and Woo are the famous founders of the Chowdynasty; Yëw and Le were two of their successorswhose character and course damaged the dynasty not alittle.

Par. 3.

This view wasafterwards advocated, with an addition to it, by Han Yu ofthe T‘ang dynasty;—see his essay inthe prolegomena. Seang was the wickedbrother of Shun;—for him and Koo-sow see V. Pt I.ii., et al. For Chow (or Show) of theShang dynasty and his relatives, see on the Analects XVIII.i., and on the Book of History, Pt IV.xi.

Parr. 5, 6.

Theseparagraphs are important for the correct understanding ofour philosopher’s views.

Par. 7.

See II. Pt I.vi. 4, 5.

Par. 8.

See the Book ofPoetry, Bk III. Pt III. vi. 1, and my commentarythere.

CH. VII.

THE PHÆNOMENA OFGOOD AND EVIL IN MEN’S CHARACTER AND CONDUCTARE TO BE EXPLAINED FROM THE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCESACTING ON THEM. ALL MEN, SAGES AND OTHERS, ARE THE SAMEIN MIND, AND IT FOLLOWS THAT THE NATURE OF OTHER MEN ISGOOD, LIKE THAT OF THE SAGES.

Par. 1.

The idea seemsto be that in good years, the supply of food and clothesbeing sufficient, the young escape temptations to robberyand other wickedness. Mencius elsewhere puts forthpowerfully the truth that adversity is often a school ofsuperior virtue. The general sentiment enunciated here, thata competence is favourable to virtue, must be admitted, andit has the warrant of Confucius in Ana. XIII.ix.

Par. 4.

Of Mr Lung, whois here quoted, nothing is known. Mencius purposely quoteshis saying on an ordinary matter as being well known, andserving to illustrate the point in hand.

Par. 5.

Yih Ya was thecook of the famous duke Hwan of Ts‘e ( BC 684—642), otherwise aworthless man, but great in his art.

Par. 6.

Of themusic-master Kwang see on IV. Pt I. i. 1.

Par. 7.

Tsze-too wasthe designation of Kung-sun Oh, a scion of the house ofCh‘ing about BC 700,distinguished for his beauty. See an account of his villainyand death in the 7th chapter of the “History ofthe several States.” See also in the Tso Chuenunder the 11th year of duke Yin, and the 16th year of dukeChwang.

CH. VIII.

HOW IT IS THAT THE NATURE,PROPERLY GOOD, COMES TO APPEAR AS IF IT WERE NOTSO;—FROM NOT RECEIVING ITS PROPERNOURISHMENT.

Par. 1.

Nëwhill, i. e. Ox hill, was a mountain notfar from the capital of Ts‘e. It is 10 le south of the present district cityof Lin-tsze, department ofTs‘ing-chow.

Par. 4.

This is asaying of Confucius for which we are indebted to Mencius.Choo He thus expands theparagraph:—“Confucius said of themind, ‘ If you hold it fast, it ishere; if you let it go, it is lost and gone; soindeterminate in regard to time is its outgoing andincoming, and also in regard to place. ’Mencius quoted his words to illustrate the unfathomablenessof the mind as spiritual and intelligent, how easy it is tohave it or to lose it, and how difficult to preserve andkeep it so that it should not be left unnourished for amoment. Learners ought constantly to be using their strengthto insure the pureness of its spirit and the settledness ofits passion-nature, as in the calm of the morning betweenday and night; then will the proper mind always bepreserved, and everywhere and in all circumstances itsmanifestations will be those of benevolence andrighteousness.”

CH. IX.

ILLUSTRATING THE PRECEDING CHAPTER.—HOW THEKING OF TS‘E’S WANT OF WISDOM WASOWING TO HIS NEGLECT OF MENCIUS’ INSTRUCTIONSAND TO BAD ASSOCIATIONS.

Par. 1.

The king isunderstood to have been Seuen ofTs‘e;—see I. Pt I. vii., et al.

Par. 2.

The lastsentence may also be taken, with Choo He, asmeaning—“Though there may be[some] sprouts of goodness in him,what can I do?”

Par. 3.

“ChessTs‘ëw;”—Ts‘ëwwas the man’s name, and he was called ChessTs‘ëw from his skill at thegame.

CH. X.

THAT IT IS PROPER TO MAN’S NATURE TO LOVERIGHTEOUSNESS MORE THAN LIFE, AND HOW IT IS THAT MANYACT AS IF IT WERE NOT SO.

Par. 1.

“Bears’ paws,” lit., palms, have been a delicacyin China from the earliest times. They require a long timeto cook them thoroughly. In BC 425,the king Ch‘ing of Ts‘oo, beingbesieged in his palace, requested that he might have a dishof bears’ palms before he was put todeath,—hoping that help would come while theywere being cooked.

Par. 5.

Up to thispoint our philosopher has been bringing out his greatpoint,—that all men have the good heart, which heclinches by the cases in the two paragraphs that follow,which are very well conceived andexpressed.

Parr. 6—8.

The reader will remember that it was with 10,000 chung that the king ofTs‘e tried to bribe Mencius to remain in hiscountry;—see II. Pt II. x. “What canthe 10,000 chung really add tohim?” is literally, inChinese—“What do the 10,000 chung add to me? ” The meaning is better brought out inEnglish by changing the person from the first to the third;but there is in the Chinese idiom also the lofty, and true,idea—that a man’s personality issomething independent of, and higher than, all externaladvantages. The same peculiarity of Chinese idiom appears inthe conclusion of the paragraph. “Is it not thatthe poor and needy of his acquaintance may be helped byhim?” is, literally, “Is it not thatthe poor and needy may get me? i. e., may get my help?” On this a Chinese writer says,“The thinking of the poor would seem to show akindly feeling, but the true nature of it appears inthe—‘ may getme. ’ The idea is not one of benevolence,but of selfishness.”

CH. XI.

HOW MEN, HAVING LOST THE PROPER QUALITIES OF THEIRNATURE, SHOULD SEEK TO RECOVERTHEM.

Par. 1.

“Benevolence is man’s mind(or heart),” i. e., it isthe proper and universal characteristic of man’snature, what, as the commentators often say, “allmen have.” “Benevolence”would seem here to include all the moral qualities ofhumanity; but it is followed by the Mencian specification of“righteousness.” Compare ourphilosopher’s yet more remarkable saying in VII.Pt II. xvi., that “Benevolence isman.”

Par. 4.

“Theobject of learning” is, literally,“The way of learning and asking,”“the way” meaning theproper course, that which is to be pursued. Menciuswould seem to be guarding himself against being supposed toteach that man need not go beyond himself to secure hisrenovation. To illustrate his “learning andasking” we are referred to Confucius’words in the Doctrine of the Mean, XX. 19, and those ofTsze-hea in Ana. XIX. vi.—It will be noted thatthe Chinese sages always end with the recovery of the oldheart, and that the Christian idea of “a newheart” is unknown to them.

CH. XII.

HOW MEN ARE SENSIBLE OF BODILYDEFECTS, HOWEVER SLIGHT, BUT ARE NOT SENSIBLE OF MENTALOR MORAL DEFECTS.

Par. 1.

The thumb iscalled by the Chinese “the greatfinger;” next to it is “the eatingfinger;” then “the leadingfinger;” then “the fourth or namelessfinger;” and last, “the littlefinger.” The fourth is called“nameless,” as being of less use thanthe others. The capital of Ts‘in was in thepresent department of Fung-ts‘eang, Shen-se, andthat of Ts‘oo in King-chow,Hoo-pih.

CH. XIII.

MEN’S EXTREME WANTOF THOUGHT IN REGARD TO THE CULTIVATION OFTHEMSELVES.

The t‘ung here is probably the bignonia. The wood of it was good formaking lutes. The tsze also yields avaluable wood, and is spoken of as “the king ofall trees.”

CH. XIV.

THE ATTENTION GIVEN BY MEN TOTHE NOURISHMENT OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THEIR NATUREMUST BE REGULATED BY THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THOSEPARTS, WHICH EVERY MAN CAN DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF BYREFLECTION.

Par. 1.

The concludingpart of this par. is rather difficult to translate, but themeaning is plain:—A man is to determine, byreflection on his constitution, what parts are moreimportant, and should have the greater attention paid tothem. It will be seen that there underlies the argument ofMencius in this chapter the important point that the humanconstitution is a system, certain parts of which should bekept subordinate to others.

Par. 2.

“Thegreat must not be injured for thesmall”;—it is implied that to neglectthe greater and nobler parts of the constitution, is reallyto injure them. They are badly treated, not receiving theattention they deserve, and the language implies thatpositive injury is done to them.

Par. 3.

The“plantation-keeper” was an officerunder the Chow dynasty, who had the superintendence of thesovereign’s plantations and orchards. The woo was the woo-t‘ung, the dryandracondifolia of Thunberg. The kea was also a valuable tree; some identify itwith the tsze of lastchapter.

Par. 4.

Theillustrations here are not so happy. Chaou K‘e,indeed, introduces the idea of the parts mentioned beingdiseased so that the “nourishing” isequivalent to trying to heal; but this does not appear inthe text The wolf, it is said, is very wary, and has a quicksight to discern danger: but when chased, he is unable toexercise this faculty, hence “a hurriedwolf” is the image of a man pursuing his courseheedlessly.

Par. 6.

The meaninghere is—that the parts considered small andignoble may have, and should have, their share of attention,if the more important parts are first cared for as theyought to be. While Mencius argued that the appetites andpassions should be kept in subjection, he would give nocountenance to the practice ofasceticism.

CH. XV.

THAT SOME ARE GREAT MEN, LORDS OF REASON; AND SOME ARELITTLE MEN, SLAVES OF SENSE.

Kung-too mighthave gone on to inquire:—“All areequally men; but some stand fast in the nobler part of theirconstitution, and others allow its supremacy to be snatchedaway by the inferior part:—how isthis?” Mencius would have tried to carry thedifficulty a step farther back, and after all have left itwhere it originally was. His saying that the nature of manis good can be reconciled with the teaching of Christianity;but his views of human nature as a whole are open to thethree objections which I have stated in the note to the 21stchapter of the Doctrine of theMean.

CH. XVI.

THERE IS A NOBILITY THAT IS OFHEAVEN, AND A NOBILITY THAT IS OF MAN; AND THE NEGLECTOF THE FORMER LEADS TO THE LOSS OF THELATTER.

Par. 1.

On the“nobility of man,” and its classes,see V. Pt II. ii. What I have translated“self-consecration” and“fidelity” are taken as devotion inmind and act to “benevolence andrighteousness,” and the “joy ingoodness” is also the goodness of thosevirtues.

Par. 2.

We have heremerely the laudation temporisacti.

Par. 3.

On“their delusion is extreme” it issaid:—“When the nobility of Heaven iscultivated in order to seek for the nobility of man, at thevery time it is cultivated, there is a previous mind tothrow it away;—showing the existence of delusion.Then when the nobility of man has been got, to throw awaythe nobility of Heaven exhibits conduct after the attainmentnot equal even to that in the time of search, so that thedelusion is extreme.” Several commentatorsobserve that facts may be referred to, apparentlyinconsistent with what is said in the last sentence of thisparagraph, and then go on to say that the preservation ofthe nobility of man, in the case supposed, is only a luckyaccident, and that the issue ought always to be as Menciusaffirms. Yes, but all moral teachings must be imperfectwhere the thoughts are bounded by what is seen andtemporal.

CH. XVII.

THE TRUE HONOUR WHICH MENSHOULD DESIRE. A sequel to the preceding chapter.“Nobility” is the material dignity,and “honour” is the estimation whichsprings from it.

Par. 2.

The“really good honour” is that whichsprings from the nobility of Heaven, and of which humanpower cannot deprive its possessor. The Chaou family was oneof the principal houses of the State of Tsin, and four ofits chiefs had had the title of Măng, or“the chief,” combined with theirsurname. They were a sort of “king-makingWarwicks,” and figure largely in the narrativesof Tso K‘ew-ming.

Par. 3.

See the Book ofPoetry, Part III. ii. Ode III. st. 1. The Ode is oneresponsive from the uncles and cousins of the reigning kingof Chow for the kindness he had shown and the honour he haddone to them at a sacrificial feast. Mencius’ useof the lines is a mere accommodation ofthem.

CH. XVIII.

IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT ITIS ADAPTED TO DO, BENEVOLENCE MUST BE PRACTISEDVIGOROUSLY AND FULLY. SO ONLY, INDEED, CAN IT BEPRESERVED. Compare with this chapterMencius’ conversation with king Hwuy of Leang inI. Pt I. iii., and also his saying in VI. Pt II. i.6.

Par. 1.

ChaouK‘e takes the conclusion of this paragraph asmeaning—“This moreover is equivalentto the course of those who are the greatest practisers ofwhat is not benevolent.” But both the sentimentand construction are in this way made moredifficult.

CH. XIX.

BENEVOLENCE MUST BEMATURED. The sentiment here is akin to that of theformer chapter, and is perhaps rather unguardedlyexpressed.

For “the five kinds ofgrain” see on III. Pt I. iv. 8. The t‘e and pae are two plants closely resembling each other.“They are a kind of spurious grain, yielding asmall seed like rice or millet. They are to be found at alltimes, in wet situations and dry, and, when crushed androasted, may satisfy the hunger in a time offamine.”

CH. XX.

LEARNING MUST NOT BE BY HALVES, BUT BY THE FULL USE OFTHE RULES APPROPRIATE TO WHAT IS LEARNED. Comparewith this chapter what Mencius says in IV. Pt I. i. andii.

Par. 1.

For E see onIV. Pt II. xxiv. 1. On this chapter Choo Hesays—“This chapter shows that affairsmust be proceeded with according to their laws, and thenthey can be accomplished. But if a master neglect these, hecannot teach; and if a pupil neglect them, he cannot learn.In small arts it is so;—how much more with theprinciples of the sages!”

CH. I.

TO OBSERVE THE RULES OFPROPERIETY IN OUR CONDUCT IS A MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE,AND WHERE THEY MAY BE DISREGARDED, THE EXCEPTION WILL BEFOUND TO PROVE THE RULE. EXTREME CASES MUST NOT BEPRESSED SO AS TO INVALIDATE THEPRINCIPLE.

Par. 1.

Jin was a smallearldom, referred to the present Tse-ning Chow, in Yen chowdepartment, Shan-tung. The distance between the city of Jinand Mencius’ native city of Tsow was only between30 and 40 miles. Uh-loo, by name Leen, a native of Tsin, wasa disciple of Mencius, and is said by some to have writtenon the doctrines of “the oldP‘ăng” and Laoutsze. Theman of Jin’s questions are not to be understoodof propriety in the abstract, but of the rules of proprietyunderstood to regulate the other things which hementioned.

Par. 7.

See in V. Pt I.ii. 1 how Mencius disposes of the charge against Shun formarrying without the knowledge of his parents,—anoffence against the rules of propriety greater than thatwhich the man of Jin had supposed. That case and even thoseadduced here came under the category of that necessity whichhas no law.

CH. II.

ALL MAY BECOME YAOUS AND SHUNS, AND TO DO SO THEY HAVEONLY SINCERELY TO CULTIVATE YAOU AND SHUN’SPRINCIPLES AND WAYS. IT IS THE MIND WHICH IS THE MEASUREOF THE MAN. HOW MENCIUS DEALT WITH AN APPLICANT IN WHOMHE HAD NOT CONFIDENCE.

Par. 1.

Ts‘aou had been an earldom, held bydescendants of one of king Wăn’s sons;but it had been extinguished and absorbed by Sung before theend of the Ch‘un Ts‘ëwperiod,—a considerable time before Mencius. Thedescendants of its earls had probably adopted the name oftheir ancient patrimony as their surname; and the Keaou ofthe text was, we may suppose, one ofthem.

Par. 2.

As to theheights mentioned here, see on Ana. VIII. vi. The ancientcubit was only, it is said, ·74 of the present,so that Wăn’s 10 cubits become reducedto 7·4, and T‘ang’s 9 to6·66 of the present standard; but these estimatesmust still be too high. Këaou was evidentlypluming himself on his dimensions.

Par. 3.

“Itall lies simply in acting assuch;”—compare the way in whichMencius puts the question of physical and moral ability inI. Pt I. vii. 10, 11. Woo Hwoh was a man noted for hisstrength. Sze-ma Ts‘ëen and othersmention him in connexion with king Woo of Ts‘in( BC 309—306).

Par. 4.

In illustrationof this paragraph, Choo He quotes two othercommentators,—Ch‘in Yang, orCh‘in Tsin-che (about the beginning of the 11thcentury), who says:—“Filial piety andfraternal duty, of which men have an intuitive knowledge,and for which they have an inborn ability, are the naturalout-goings of the nature. Yaou and Shun exhibited theperfection of the human relations; but yet they simply actedin accordance with this nature. How could they add ahair’s point to it?” and Yang She orYang Chung-teih ( AD 1053—1099), who says:—“Theway of Yaou and Shun was great, but what made it so was nowthe rapidity and now the slowness of their walking andstopping, and not things that were very high and difficultto practise. This is what may be present to the commonpeople in their daily usages, but they do not knowit.”

Par. 5.

The meaning issimply—Imitate the men, doing as they did, andyou will be such as they.

Par. 6.

There is anindication here that Keaou was presuming on his nobility,and vaunting his influence with the ruler of Tsow. Moreover,his wish to secure a lodging before he became a pupil inMencius’ school is held to show that he wasdevoid of genuine earnestness. On these grounds Menciuswould give him no encouragement, yet there are importanttruths and a valuable lesson in the words of the nextparagraph, with which he sent him away.

CH. III.

MENCIUS’EXPLANATION OF THE ODES SËAOU PWAN ANDK‘AE FUNG. COMPLAINTS AGAINST A PARENT ARENOT NECESSARILY UNFILIAL.

Par. 1.

Who theKaou-tsze, mentioned here, was, must be left in doubt. FromMencius calling him “that old Kaou,”it would seem plain that he could not be the individual ofthe same surname who appears in II. Part II. xii. 2, andwas, we may suppose, a disciple of ourphilosopher.

For the Seaou pwan see the Book ofPoetry, Part II. vii. Ode III. That Ode is commonly, thoughnot by Chaou K‘e, accepted as having been writtenby E-k‘ëw, the son and heir-apparentof king Yëw ( BC 780—770), or by the prince’s master.Led away by the arts of a mistress, the king degradedE-k‘ëw and his mother, and the Odeexpresses the sorrow and dissatisfaction which the son couldnot but feel in such circumstances.

Par. 2.

This isMencius’ vindication of the dissatisfaction andeven indignation expressed in the Seaou pwan. The firstshooter well appears as a man of Yueh, a barbarous countryin the south, in whom the beholder could have nointerest.

Par. 3.

For theK‘ae fung see the Book of Poetry, Part I. iii.Ode VII. That Ode is supposed to be the production of sevensons in the State of Wei, whose widowed mother could notlive quietly and chastely at home; but they take all theblame for her conduct to themselves, and express nodissatisfaction with her.

Par. 4.

We must thinkthere was room for dissatisfaction in both cases.Mencius’ justification of the K‘aefung is an instance in point to show how filial piety inChina often dominates other feelings, though he would seemto intimate that, where great public interests are inquestion, it should be kept in check.

Par. 5.

See V. Pt I.i.

CH. IV.

MENCIUS’ WARNING TO SUNGK‘ĂNG ON THE ERROR AND DANGER OFCOUNSELLING THE PRINCES TO ABSTAIN FROM WAR ON THEGROUND OF ITS UNPROFITABLENESS, THE PROPER GROUND BEINGTHAT OF BENEVOLENCE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. Compareespecially I. Pt I. i., where we have the key-note to muchof our philosopher’s teaching.

Par. 1.

SungK‘ăng, or K‘ăngof Sung, was one of the travelling scholars of the times,who made it their business to go from State to State tocounsel the princes. He was, it is said, a disciple of MihTeih. Shih-k‘ew was in Sung, but where does notseem to be ascertained.

Par. 2.

“Respected Sir,” isliterally “elder born.” It would seemthat Mencius and K‘ăng must have hadsome previous acquaintance. Our philosopher must have beentravelling at this time in Sung. The hostilities which hadcalled forth K‘ăng on his mission havebeen referred to the year BC 311.

Par. 3.

Does notMencius himself in the conclusion bring in the idea ofprofitableness, when he says that the course which herecommended would raise the kinglet who followed it to thetrue royal sway?

CH. V.

HOW MENCIUS REGULATED HIMSELF IN DIFFERENTLYACKNOWLEDGING DIFFERENT FAVOURS WHICH HERECEIVED.

Par. 1.

Jin,—see on ch. i.P‘ing-luh,—see on II. Pt II. iv. 1.The ruler of Jin must have gone abroad on some State duty orservice, leaving his brother guardian of the State for thetime.

Par. 4.

See the Book ofHistory, V. xiii. 12.

Par. 5.

This isMencius’ explanation of the passage which he hadquoted.

Par. 6.

Uh-loo nowunderstood the reasons of Mencius’ differentconduct. By his guardianship the prince of Jin was preventedfrom leaving the State to go to Tsow; but the minister ofTs‘e could have gone to P‘ing-luhwhich was in that State.

CH. VI.

HOW MENCIUS REPLIED TO THE INSINUATIONS OF SHUN-YUK‘WĂN, WHO CONDEMNED HIM FORLEAVING OFFICE IN TS‘E WITHOUT HAVINGACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING.

Par. 1.

For Shun-yuK‘wăn see on IV. Pt I. xvii. He thereappears, as here, captiously questioning our philosopher.“Acts from a regard toothers;”— i.e., such a man’s motive is to benefitothers. “Acts from a regard tohimself;”— i.e., such a man is bent on the personal cultivationof himself. “The three high ministers”were those of Instruction, of War, and of Works. The kingsof Chow had six high ministers; but though the princes ofTs‘e and other States had usurped the title ofking, it would appear that their organization of offices hadnot been fully completed. Some say that in these kingdomsthe high ministers were distinguished into threeclasses,—upper, middle, and lower, without thespecial designations used in Chow.

Par. 2.

For Pih-e, EYin, and Hwuy of Lëw-hëa, see II. PtI. ii. ix. IV. Pt I. xiii.: V. Pt. II. i.; et al.

Par. 3.

K‘wăn here advances in hiscondemnation of Mencius. He had charged him with having lefthis office before he had accomplished anything, but here heinsinuates that though he had remained in office, he wouldnot have done anything. Tsze-lew is the same with the SeehLëw of II. Pt II. xi., which paragraph should becompared with this. Kung-e, called Hew, was prime-ministerof Loo,—a man of merit and principle. The factsof duke Muh’s history by no means justify whatK‘wăn alleges here as to thedismemberment of Loo in his time.

Par. 4.

For Pih-le Hesee V. Pt I. 9.

Par. 5.

Of the men hereall belonged to Ts‘e, except Wang Paou, who wasof Wei, in which was the river K‘e. Of him andMeen K‘eu little is known. The bravery ofK‘e Lëang and Hwa Chow is muchcelebrated, and also the virtue of K‘eLëang’s wife, with the way in whichshe and the wife of Hwa Chow bewailed their husbands. See anarrative in the Tso Chuen, under the 23rd year of dukeSeang; the Le Ke, II. Pt II. iii. 1; etal. In the citation of these instances,K‘wăn’s object was toinsinuate that Mencius was a pretender, because, whereverthere was ability, it was sure to come out, and to proveitself by its fruits.

Par. 6.

Mencius shieldshimself by the example of Confucius, implying that he wasbeyond the knowledge of a sophist likeK‘wăn. See the Life of Confucius inVol. I.

CH. VII.

THE PROGRESS AND MANNER OFDEGENERACY FROM THE THREE KINGS TO THE FIVE PRESIDENTSOF THE PRINCES, AND FROM THE FIVE PRESIDENTS OF THEPRINCES TO THE PRINCES AND OFFICERS OFMENCIUS’ TIME.

Par. 1.

“Thethree kings” are the founders of the threedynasties of Hea, Shang, and Chow. “The fivepresidents of the princes” were Hwan ofTs‘e ( BC 683—642), Wăn of Tsin(634—627), Seang of Sung, (649—636),Muh of Tsin (658—620); and Chwang ofTs‘oo (612—590). These professed totake the lead and direction of the various States, andexercised really royal functions throughout the kingdom,while yet there was a profession of loyal attachment to thehouse of Chow. There are two enumerations of the“five presidents;”—onecalled “the presidents of the threedynasties,” and one called “thepresidents of the Ch‘un Ts‘ewperiod:”—only Hwan of Ts‘eand Wăn of Tsin are common to the two. ButMencius is speaking, probably, only of those included in thesecond enumeration; and though there is some difference ofopinion in regard to the individuals in the list, the namesI have given were, I think, those he had in his mind:“Were sinners against;”— i. e. violated their principles andways.

Par. 2.

See I. Pt II.iv. 5. This par. exhibits the principles and ways of“the three kings,” and concludes byshowing how “the five presidents”violated them.

Par. 3.

Duke Hwanbrought the princes of the States together many times, butno occasion perhaps was greater than the assembly atK‘wei-k‘ëw (probably in thepresent district of K‘aou-shing, departmentK‘wei-fung), in BC 650.Mencius, no doubt, selected this because he had a fullaccount of it, which enabled him to exhibit it as a specimenof the principles and ways of the presidents of the States.The object in assembling the princes was to get them to forma covenant with conditions required by the existing state ofthings in the kingdom. The usual practice at those meetingswas first to dig a square pit over which the victim wasslain. Its left ear was then cut off, and placed in a vesselornamented with pearls, and the blood was received in avessel of jade. Holding these vessels the president of theassembly read out the articles of the covenant, with hisface to the north, announcing them to the Spirits of the sunand moon, the mountains and rivers. After this he and allthe others smeared the corners of their mouths with theblood, placed the victim in the pit, with the articles ofthe covenant upon it, and then covered itup.

CH. VIII.

MENCIUS’ OPPOSITIONTO THE WARLIKE AMBITION OF THE MARQUIS OFLOO:—A CONVERSATION WITH THE GENERAL SHINKUH-LE.

Par. 1.

We do not havemuch information about the Shin who appears here. Accordingto Sze-ma Ts‘een there was, inMencius’ time, a Shin Taou, a native of Chaou,and a writer of the Taouist sect. It is supposed that he hadalso studied the art of war, and that duke P‘ingof Loo now wished to take advantage of his skill. In par. 4,Shin appears to call himself by the name ofKuh-le—which is against his being this Shin Taou.Some therefore say that he had studied under a Mihistprofessor of the time, who was called K‘inKuh-le, and that we should translate in par.4—“This is what[even] Kuh-le does notunderstand.” But Kuh-le there must beShin’s own name. We must leave the question ofwho he was undetermined. The title of“army-commander” which appears herehad come into use in the Ch‘unTs‘ëw period.

Par. 2.

Compare whatConfucius says in Ana. XIII. xxix. andxxx.

Par. 3.

Nan-yang was atract of country south of mount T‘ae, whichoriginally belonged to Loo, but had been taken andappropriated by Ts‘e. Duke P‘ing ofLoo now wanted to take advantage of the difficulties ofTs‘e to regain the territory.—The factof Nan-yang’s having originally been Looterritory certainly made it a bad text for Mencius to givehis lecture to Shin-tsze on it.

Par. 4.

The statuteskept in the ancestral temple would prescribe all thingsrelating to the public sacrifices, the interviews of theruler of Loo with other princes, and other public matters,the expense of which required a territory of 100 le square to defraythem.

Par. 6.

“Tae-kung;”—seeon IV. Pt I. xiii.

CH. IX.

MENCIUS CONDEMNS THE MINISTERS OF HIS TIME FORPANDERING TO, AND EVEN ENCOURAGING, THEIRRULERS’ THIRST FOR WEALTH AND POWER. This chapter probably owes its place here to its being asort of sequel to the last paragraph of the precedingone.

Par. 1.

“Wecan enlarge the territory of the cultivatedground;”—compare IV. Pt I. xiv. 3. Theterritory would be enlarged at the expense of the people,taking their commons from them, and making them labour uponthem for the ruler. Chaou K‘e takes the phrase asmeaning the appropriation of small States;—whichis not so good.

Par. 4. See IV.Pt I. xiv. 2.

CH. X.

ANORDERED STATE CAN ONLY SUBSIST WITH A PROPER SYSTEM OFTAXATION; AND THAT WHICH ORIGINATED WITH YAOU AND SHUNIS THE PROPER ONE FOR CHINA.

Par. 1.

Pih Kwei (asappears from next chapter, named Tan) is generally supposedto have been a man of Chow, ascetic in his own habits andfond of innovations. Such is the account of him given bySze-ma Ts‘een; but there are difficulties in theway of our supposingTs‘ëen’s Pih Kwei to be thesame as the person who appears here.

Par. 2.

The Mih wereone of the wild tribes lying on the north of the middleStates,—the China of Mencius’ time.The name does not occur in the Ch‘unTs‘ëw, nor in the Tso Chuen. Itsterritory, lying far north, would be unfit for most of thekinds of gram. The people would be for the most part nomads,and very inferior in civilization to those of the States ofChina, though Mencius perhaps rather exaggerates the extentof their barbarism.

Par. 7.

Under thesystem of taxation proposed by Pih Kwei, China would becomea copy of the Mih; under a heavier system than that of Yaouand Shun, it would be brought to its state under the tyrantKëeh.

CH. XI.

PIH KWEI’S PRESUMPTUOUS IDEA THAT HE COULDREGULATE INUNDATIONS OF THE RIVERS BETTER THAN YU HADDONE.

There must have been some partialmundations at this time, and Pih Kwei had been called in toremedy them. This he had done in an unsatisfactory way,benefiting one State at the expense ofothers.

CH. XII.

FAITH IN PRINCIPLES ISNECESSARY TO FIRMNESS IN ACTION.

CH. XIII.

OF WHAT IMPORTANCE IT IS TO AMINISTER—TO GOVERNMENT—TO LOVEWHAT IS GOOD.

Par. 1.

Yoh-ching,—see I. Pt I. xvi. et al.

Par. 2.

The three giftsmentioned here were those generally considered mostimportant to government, and Kung-sun Ch‘ow,knowing Yoh-ching to be deficient in them, shaped hisquestions accordingly.

Par. 4.

On this it issaid:—“In the administration ofgovernment, the most excellent quality is without prejudiceand dispassionately to receive what is good. Now Yoh-chingin his heart sincerely loved all good words and goodactions.”

CH. XIV.

THE GROUNDS ON WHICH WORTHIESOF OLD TOOK OFFICE OR LEFT IT.

Par. 1.

“Thedisciple Ch‘in” here was theCh‘in Ts‘in of II. Pt II.iii.

Parr. 2—4.

Compare V. Pt II. iv. 7. There Confucius appearsas having taken office on all the grounds mentioned here. Inthis chapter our philosopher enters more into the groundswhy the office once undertaken should again beabandoned;—if in the third case we can speak ofoffice having been taken.

CH. XV.

TRIALS AND HARDSHIPS THE WAY IN WHICH HEAVEN PREPARESMEN FOR GREAT SERVICES. ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASES OFSEVERAL EMINENT WORTHIES OF FORMERTIMES.

Par. 1.

The rise ofShun is well known:—see the 1st part of the Bookof History. Foo Yueh,—see the Book of History,Part IV. viii., where it is related that king Kaou-tsung,having dreamt that “God gave him a goodassistant,” caused a picture of the man he hadseen in his dream to be made, and search made for himthrough the kingdom, when he was found dwelling in thewilderness of Foo-yen. Sze-ma Ts‘een says thatthe surname of the man was given in the dream as Foo, andhis name as Yueh, which the king interpreted as meaning,that he would be a “tutor” ( foo ) to himself, and a“blessing” ( yueh )to the people. Kaou Kih is mentioned in II. Pt I. i. 8, asan able assistant of the last king of Yin. In the disordersand misgovernment of that king Kaou Kih had retired toobscurity, and was discovered by the lord of Chow in theguise of a seller of fish and salt, and induced to takeoffice under the king, with whom Kih continued faithful tothe last.

Kwan E-woo was the chief minister of dukeHwan of Ts‘e;—see II. Pt I. i.; et al. He was carried from Loo toTs‘e in a cage, Hwan having demanded hissurrender that he might have the pleasure of putting him todeath; but he met him outside the city and raised him to thegreatest distinction. Shuh-sun Gaou was chief minister toking Chwang of Ts‘oo, one of the five presidentsof the States. He appears in the narratives of the Tso Chuen(see Book VII. xi.; et al. ) as WeiGae-leeh. He belonged to one of the principal families ofTs‘oo; but being at one time treated with neglectby the king, he had retired into obscurity, and livedsomewhere (it must have been out of Ts‘oo) on thesea-coast. The events of his life at this time, however, areall but lost to history. Afterwards, he did good service tothe State. Sun-shuh must have been his designationoriginally, and Gaou was the name of an office inTs‘oo,—probably the sound of itsappellation in the original language of the country. Pih-leHe,—see V. Pt I. ix.

Par. 3.

This par. isintended to show that the same thing may in a manner bepredicated of ordinary men. The concluding part seems to saythat though most men are not quick of apprehension, yet whenthings are brought clearly before them, they can lay hold ofthem.

Par. 4.

The same thingis true of a State. “Families attached to thelaws” will not readily submit to the infractionof those laws without remonstrating, and their feelings willfind a voice in the “ablecounsellors.” This will stimulate theruler’s mind; and foreign danger will make himcareful, and rouse him to exertion.

CH. XVI.

THAT A REFUSAL TO TEACH MAY BETEACHING.

There is a sufficient example ofwhat Mencius states here in the secondchapter.

*

TITLE OF THIS BOOK. Like the previousBooks, this is named from the commencing words— Tsin Sin, “The exhausting of all themental constitution.” It contains many more chapters than anyof the others,—brief, enigmatical sentences for the mostpart, conveying Mencius’ views on human nature. It is moreabstruse also, and the student will have much difficulty in satisfyinghimself that he has hit the exact meaning of our philosopher. The authorof “The Root and Relish of the four Books”says:—“This Book was made by Mencius in his oldage. Its style is terse, and its meaning deep, and we cannot discover anorder of subjects in its chapters. He had completed the previouschapters, and this grew up under his stylus, as hismind was affected, and he was prompted to give expression to histhoughts. The first chapter, however, may be regarded as a compendium ofthe whole.”

CH. I.

BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF OURSELVESWE COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF HEAVEN, AND HEAVEN IS SERVEDBY OUR OBEYING OUR NATURE.

Par. 1.

“Toexhaust our mental constitution” is, I conceive,to make one’s-self acquainted with all his mental constitution, havingarrested his consciousness, and ascertained what it is. Thisof course gives a man the knowledge of his nature; and as heis the creature of Heaven, its attributes must becorresponding. I can get no other meaning from thisparagraph. Choo He, however, and all his school, say thatthere is no work or labour in “exhausting themental constitution;”—that it is“the extension to the utmost ofknowledge” of the 1st chapter of “TheGreat Learning;” and that all the labour is in“knowing the nature,” which is“the investigation of things” of thatchapter. On this view we should translate, “Hewho completely developes his mental constitution has known(come to know) his nature;” but this is a forcedconstruction of the text.

Par. 2.

The“preservation” is the holding fastthat which we have from Heaven, and the“nourishing” is the acting inaccordance therewith, so that the “servingHeaven” is just the being and doing what It hasintimated in our constitution to be Its will concerningus.

Par. 3.

Man’s“[Heaven-]ordainedbeing” is his nature according to the openingwords of “The Doctrine of theMean;”—“What Heaven hasconferred is called THENATURE. ”“Establishing” this means“keeping entire what Heaven has conferred uponus, and not injuring it by any doing of ourown.”

It may be well to give the remarks ofChaou K‘e on this chapter. On the 1st par. hesays:—“To the nature there belong theprinciples of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, andknowledge. The mind is designed to regulate them. When themind is correct, a man can put it all forth in thinking ofdoing good, and then he may be said to know his nature. Whenhe knows his nature, then he knows how the way of Heavenconsiders as excellent what is good.”

Onthe 2nd par. he says:—“When one isable to preserve his mind and nourish his correct[nature], he may be called a man ofperfect virtue. The way of Heaven loves life, and theperfect man also loves life. The way of Heaven is withoutpartiality, and only approves of the virtuous.[Thus] the acting [of theperfect man] agrees with Heaven, and therefore itis said, ‘This is the way by which he servesHeaven.’ ”

On the 3rd par. hesays:—“ ‘Double’means two. The perfect man in his conduct is guided by onerule simply. Although he sees that some who have gone beforehim have been short-lived, and some long-lived, he never hastwo minds or changes his way. Let life be short like that ofYen Yuen, or long like that of the duke of Shaou, he refersboth cases equally to the appointment of Heaven, andcultivates and rectifies his own person to wait for that. Itis in this way that he establishes the root of[Heaven’s]appointments.”

The differences betweenthese interpretations and those of Choo He may well lead theforeign student to put forth his strength on the study ofthe text more than on the commentaries.

CH. II.

MAN’S DUTY AS AFFECTED BY THE DECREES ORAPPOINTMENTS OF HEAVEN. WHAT MAY BE CORRECTLY ASCRIBEDTO THOSE, AND WHAT NOT. Choo He says this is acontinuation of the last chapter, developing the meaning ofits concluding paragraph. There is a connexion between thechapters, but Heaven’s decree or appointment ishere taken more widely, as extending not only toman’s nature, but to all the events that befallhim.

Par. 1.

“Aman should submissively receive what may be correctlyascribed to appointment” is, literally,“a man should submissively receive the correctappointment.” The correct appointment is thatwhich is directly from the will of Heaven; and noconsequence flowing from evil or careless conduct is to beunderstood as being so.

Par. 4.

The handcuffsor fetters are understood to be those of anevildoer:—There is important truth underlyingthis chapter. Compare with it various passages in the 1stEpistle of Peter.

CH. III.

VIRTUE IS SURE TO BE FOUND BYSEEKING IT, BUT RICHES AND OTHER EXTERNAL THINGSNOT.

The general sentiment of this chapter isgood, but truth is sacrificed to the point of theantithesis, when it is said in the second case that seekingis of no use to getting. The things“in ourselves” are the virtues ofbenevolence, righteousness, propriety, andknowledge,—the endowments proper of our nature.Those “without ourselves” are richesand dignities. The “proper course” toseek them is that ascribed toConfucius,—“Advancing according topropriety, and retiring according torighteousness;” but yet they are not at ourcommand and control. Chaou K‘e appropriatelyquotes in reference to them the words of the sage in Ana.VII. xi., “as the search may not be successful, Iwill follow after that which Ilove.”

CH. IV.

MAN IS FITTED FOR AND HAPPY IN DOING GOOD, AND MAYBECOME PERFECT THEREIN.

Par. 1.

This briefsaying is quite mystical. The “allthings” are taken as “the radicalnature of the reasons of things,” and then thethings must be further restricted to the relations ofsociety and the duties belonging to them. If we extend themfarther, we only get perplexed.

Par. 2.

The“sincerity” is that so largely treatedof in the Doctrine of the Mean.

Par. 3.

For“the law of reciprocity” see Ana. XV.xxiii. To have complete sincerity, it is said, would beperfect virtue. Where there is something wanting in this,the way is to act vigorously on the law ofreciprocity.

CH. V.

MANY MAY ACT RIGHTLY WITHOUT KNOWING WHY THEY DO SO. ALESSON FOR THE PHILOSOPHER’SPUPILS.

It would be easier to understand suchchapters as this, if we had before us the conversation ordiscussion out of which they grew, and of which they containMencius’ own condensedsummary.

CH. VI.

THE VALUE OF THE FEELING OF SHAME. A wise and deeputterance.

CH. VII.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FEELINGOF SHAME, AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF BEING WITHOUT IT. The former chapter, it is said, was by way of exhortation;and this is by way of warning.

Par. 2.

In this Menciusmay have been aiming at the wandering scholars of his time,who were full of plots and schemes to unite and disunite thevarious kinglets. Chaou K‘e supposes that theinventors of destructive engines for purposes of war areintended. It is implied that if those parties had the senseof shame, they would not form such plots nor make suchengines.

Par. 3.

Choo He givesanother view of this par., as alsoadmissible;—“If a man be not ashamedof not being like other men, how will he be able to be likethem?” This is Chaou K‘e’sview generalized.

CH. VIII.

HOW THE ANCIENT SCHOLARSMAINTAINED THEIR DIGNITY AND RESERVE, AND HOW THEANCIENT KINGS APPRECIATED THEM.

Mencius had,no doubt, in mind in these remarks to indicate his owncharacter and course, and to condemn the wandering scholarsof his time.

CH. IX.

HOW AN ADVISER OF THE PRINCES MIGHT ALWAYS APPEARPERFECTLY SATISFIED;—ILLUSTRATED BY THEEXAMPLE OF THE SCHOLARS OFANTIQUITY.

Par. 1.

Nothing isknown of Sung Kow-tsëen beyond what appears here.He was, we may assume, like Sung K‘ăng(VI. Pt II. iv.) one of the adventurers who travelled abouttendering their advice to the differentprinces.

Par. 5.

“Holds possession ofhimself;”—Chaou K‘eexpounds:—“Holds possession of hisproper nature.” Rather it is—holdspossession of himself as described in par. 3,“honouring virtue, and delighting inrighteousness.” Choo Hesays:—“This chapter shows how thescholar, attaching weight to what is internal, and holdingwhat is external light, will approve himself good in allplaces and circumstances.”

CH. X.

HOW SUPERIOR PEOPLE GET THEIR INSPIRATION TO GOOD INTHEMSELVES.

“The mass ofmen” is literally “allmen;” i. e., ordinarypeople.

CH. XI.

NOT TO BE ELATED BY GREAT RICHES IS A PROOF OF REALSUPERIORITY.

The word“add,” especially the Chinese termhere so rendered, implies that the person here spoken of isalready wealthy. Han and Wei were two of the six greatfamilies of the State of Tsin,—of whom someaccount is given on I. Pt I. i. 1.

CH. XII.

WHEN A RULER’S AIMIS EVIDENTLY THE PEOPLE’S GOOD, THEY WILL NOTMURMUR AT HIS HARSHEST MEASURES.

The firstpart is explained rightly of toils in agriculture,road-making, bridge-making, c.: and the second issupposed to refer to the administration of justice, but Ishould prefer thinking that Mencius had the idea of a justwar before him. Compare Ana. XX. ii. 2.

CH. XIII.

THE INFLUENCE EXERTED BY ATRUE SOVEREIGN AND HIS RULE. THE DIFFERENT AND INFERIORINFLUENCE OF A PRESIDENT OF THESTATES.

Par. 1.

“Brisk andcheerful;”—but the permanence of thiscannot be looked for. In illustration of the condition andappearance of the people under a true sovereign,commentators generally quote a tradition of their stateunder Yaou, when “entire harmony reigned underheaven, and the lives of the people passed easilyaway.” Then the old men struck the clods, andsang:—

- “We rise at sunrise,

- We rest at sunset,

- Dig wells and drink,

- Till our fields and eat;—

- What is the strength of the emperor tous?”

Par. 2.

There is thesame difficulty in interpreting the first clause here of theadministration of justice, which I have adverted to in thenote on ch. xii.

Par. 3.

“Thesuperior man” has the highest meaning of whichthe phrase is susceptible, and = a sage, and evena sage on the throne. In the influence of Shun in the timeof his obscurity, when the ploughmen yielded the furrowamong themselves, and the potters made their vessels allsound, we have an example, it is said, of asage’s transforming influence wherever he passedthrough, or resided for a time. In what would have been theinfluence of Confucius, had he been in the position of aruler, as described in Ana XIX. xxv. 4, we have, it is said,an example of the spiritual nature of a sage, wherever heabides. A “spiritual” influence is onewhich is wonderful and mysterious, great but not palpable,like the plastic energy of nature,—the growth andtransformations constantly going on under heaven and earth.These last terms show that a pantheistic view of theuniverse had come, at times at least, to supersede the ideaof the operation of a personal God.

CH. XIV.

THE VALUE TO A RULER OF A GOODREPUTATION AND OF MORALINFLUENCES.

Par. 1.

Kindly wordsare but brief, and on an occasion. A reputation for kindnessis the growth of time and of manyevidences.

Par. 2.

“Good government” refers tothe various enactments of law, affecting the externalcondition of the people. “Goodinstructions” are the lessons of duty, whichshould be impressed in connexion withthese.—Commentators, to make out a connexionbetween this par, and the former, say that the“good reputation” has grown out of thegood government.

Par. 3.

Compare Ana.II. iii.

CH. XV.

BENEVOLENCE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS PROVED BY THE CASE OFCHILDREN TO BE NATURAL TO MAN, AND PARTS OF HISCONSTITUTION.

Par. 1.

The phrasestranslated “intuitive ability,”“intuitive knowledge” have also theidea of goodness inthem.

Par. 3.

The latter halfof this paragraph is by no means clear, or easilytranslated. I have given Choo He’s view of it.Chaou K‘e says.—“Those whowish to do good have nothing else to do but to extend theseways of children to all underheaven.”

CH. XVI.

HOW WHAT SHUN WAS DISCOVEREDITSELF IN HIS GREATESTOBSCURITY.

Shun’s emotion of mind wasas here pictured.

CH. XVII.

MAN’S WHOLE DUTY ISTO OBEY THE LAW IN HIMSELF.

It would not beeasy to make this utterance intelligible without supplement.Chaou interprets and supplies thus: “Do not makea man do what you yourself do not do,”c.

CH. XVIII.

THE BENEFITS OF TROUBLE ANDAFFLICTION;—ILLUSTRATED. Compare VI. PtII. xv.

CH. XIX.

FOUR DIFFERENT CLASSES OFMINISTERS:—THE MERCENARY; THE LOYAL; THEUNSELFISH AND FAR-REACHING; THE TRULYGREAT.

Par. 1.

Mencius speaksof this class as only“persons,”—incontempt.

Par. 2.

Compare Pt II.xiv.

Par. 3.

Compare V. PtI. vii. 5, though some contend that “the peopleof Heaven” has a wider meaning there than here.The phrase here denotes men who are contented with theirposition in obscurity, and would continue all their life init, but are prepared at the same time to go forth to publicduty, when they see the call.

Par. 4.

The“[all] things,”must be understood first of the ruler andpeople.

CH. XX.

THE THREE THINGS WHICH THE SUPERIOR MAN DELIGHTS IN.ROYAL SWAY IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

A very finechapter.

CH. XXI.

MAN’S NATURE THEMOST IMPORTANT THING TO HIM, AND THE SOURCE OF HISGREATEST ENJOYMENT. ITS CONSTITUENTS AND THEIRMANIFESTATION. This also is a fine chapter, but itis not so intelligible as the last. There is a mistinessabout the two last paragraphs.

Par. 1.

This describesthe condition of the lord of a large State, who has manyopportunites of doing good. Why he should not delight in it,as much as the subject of the next paragraph in hiscondition, I do not see.

Par. 2.

The subject ofthis par is a true king, and why he should delight in hiscondition contrary to the dictum in par. 1 of last chapter,I do not see. “What belongs to hisnature” would appear to be here as much as in themanifestations of it mentioned in par. 4.

Par. 3.

Does Menciusmean to say that the nature, being given from Heavencomplete, cannot, where it is cherished, be added to orimproved from without by any course of its possessor? Whathe seems to assert would need to be more clearlydefined.

Par. 4.

Here ourphilosopher is more magniloquent than precise. The lastsentence means that the limbs are instantaneously obedientto the will.

CH. XXII.

THE GOVERNMENT OF KINGWĂN, BY WHICH HE SHOWED THAT HE KNEW WELL HOWTO SUPPORT THE OLD.

Par. 1.

See IV. Pt I.xiii. 1.

Par. 2.

This par is tobe translated historically, as it describes kingWăn’s government. See I. Pt I. iii. 4; et al. Mencius has not mentionedbefore the number of brood hens and sows required to be keptby each family.

Par. 3.

By“fields” we are to understand theallotments of 100 mow, and by“dwellings,” the homesteads, each withits five mow.

CH. XXIII.

THE FIRST CARE OF AGOVERNMENT, TO PROMOTE THE VIRTUE OF THE PEOPLE, SHOULDBE TO MAKE THEM WELL OFF; AND HOW THIS IS TO BEDONE.

Par. 2.

“Seasonably;”—seeI. Pt I. iii. 3, 4. The “prescribedceremonies” would be the occasions of capping,marriage, funerals, c., excepting on which a stricteconomy was to be observed.

Par. 3.

With theconcluding sentiment compare VI. Pt I. vii. 1; et al.

CH. XXIV.

THE DOCTRINES OF THE SAGE,THOUGH GREAT, HAVE THEIR RADICAL PRINCIPLES, AND THESTUDENT CAN GET A KNOWLEDGE OF THEM ONLY BY A GRADUALPROCESS.

Par. 1.

The higher oneis, the smaller does what is beneath him appear to be; themore familiar we are with what is great, the more difficultdo we find it to appreciate what is small. This appears tobe the lesson in this paragraph, which is aptly compared tothe allusire stanzas and odes in theBook of Poetry; the whole being designed to impress the mindwith the greatness of the doctrines of thesage,—of Confucius, by way of eminence. There isa difficulty in identifying what is here called“the eastern hill.” Some will have itto be a small hill, called Fang, in the present district ofK‘euh-fow, at the foot of whichConfucius’ parents were buried; others, the Munghill (Ana XVI. i. 4), in the district of Pe, departmentE-chow. Mount T‘ae was the chief of the fivegreat mountains of China. It lay on the extreme east ofTs‘e,—in the present department ofT‘ae-gan, and about two miles from the city ofthat name. A place is shown on the mountain, barely half wayto its summit, as the point to which Confucius ascended; butthere is a temple to him, now sadly dilapidated, near thesummit itself. Confucius, no doubt, would go to the very topof it.

Par. 2.

The lesson hereseems to be that the very greatness of the sage’sdoctrines must lead us to think of their elementaryprinciples. Who can look at the foaming waves, and supposethat they are fortuitous and sourceless? The full-orbed sunor moon is so bright that we can hardly look at it, but itslight evidences itself even through the smallest orifice.This par. is compared to the metaphorical stanzas and odes in the Book ofPoetry.

Par. 3.

This par. isthe practical application of the chapter.“Flowing water;”—see IV. PtII. xviii. 2. “The student” is,literally, “the superiorman,”—meaning such a man beut onlearning the doctrines of the sage.

CH. XXV.

THE DIFFERENT RESULTS OF THETHOUGHT OF GOODNESS AND THE THOUGHT OFGAIN.

Par. 1.

“Adisciple of Shun;”— i.e., although such a man may not himself attain tobe a sage, he is treading in the steps ofone.

Par. 2.

“Chih;”—see III.Pt II. x. 3.

CH. XXVI.

THE ERRORS OF YANG-TSZE,MIH-TSZE, AND TSZE-MOH. OBSTINATE ADHERENCE TO APRINCIPLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF ALL OPPOSING CONSIDERATIONS,IS VERY PERILOUS.

Par. 1.

Yang-tsze isthe Yang Choo of III. ii. ix. 3;—see what I havesaid on him in the prolegomena. One ofthe paragraphs there, exhibiting his sayings and views,contains the words here used to describe his principle byMencius. It was, no doubt, current amongscholars.

Par. 2.

Mih-tsze hasappeared already in III. Pt I. v. 1, and Pt II.ix.;—see also the account of him and of hisprinciple in the prolegomena.

Par. 3.

Tsze-moh issaid to have belonged to Loo, but nothing more is known ofhim. What his principle was cannot therefore be defined. Itcould not have been that developed in the“Doctrine of the Mean;” what he heldmust have been something intermediate between theselfishness of Yang and the transcendentalism of Mih. WhatMencius meant by “the exigency ofcircumstances” will be understood by a referenceto IV. Pt I. xvii.

Par. 4.

The orthodoxway of the scholars of China is to do what is right withreference to the whole circumstances of every case and time.See Mencius’ defence of it in VI. Pt II.1.

CH. XXVII.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT ALLOWINGTHE MIND TO BE INJURED BY POVERTY AND A MEANCONDITION.

Par. 1.

With referenceto the mind, hunger and thirst stand for poverty and a meancondition.

Par. 2.

“Other men” here are notthe wealthy and honourable, but sages and worthies. Such aman is on the way to become one of them.

CH. XXVIII.

HWUY OFLËW-HEA’S STEDFAST ADHERENCE TOHIS PLAN OF LIFE.

On Hwuy ofLëw-hea see II. Pt I. ix. 2, 3; et al. In V. Pt I. i. 5, a certain mildness, oraccommodating of himself to others, is mentioned asHwuy’s characteristic, but Mencius takes carehere that that should not be confounded with vacillatingweakness. For the “three kung, ” or highest ministers at theroyal court, see the Book of History, V. xx.5.

CH. XXIX.

THAT LABOUR ONLY IS TO BEPRIZED WHICH ACCOMPLISHES ITS OBJECT.

CompareAna. IX. xviii.: and VI. Pt I. xix. The commentators mostlysuppose that Mencius had the prosecution of learning inview; but the application of his words may be verywide.

CH. XXX.

THE DIFFERENCE OF THECHARACTERS DISPLAYED BY YAOU AND SHUN, BYT‘ANG AND WOO, AND BY THE FIVE PRESIDENTS OFTHE STATES, AS NATURAL, ACQUIRED, ANDFEIGNED.

Par. 1.

Mencius isspeaking of the attributes displayed by the partiesmentioned in their several rules. “The fivepresidents of the States;”—see VI. PtII. vii.

Par. 2.

Some wouldinterpret this par. ;—“Having feignedthem long, and not returned [to theright], how could they know that they did not[really] havethem?”

CH. XXXI.

THE END MAY JUSTIFY THE MEANSIN DEALING WITH A BAD RULER, BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT TOBE EASILY APPLIED.

Par. 1.

E Yin and hisdealing withT‘ae-këah.;—see V. Pt I.vi. 5, and the Book of History, IV. v. Pt I.9.

Par. 3.

The mind of EYin was entirely loyal, and his aim was only the publicgood.—Compare for the general sentiment whatMencius says in V. Pt II. ix., and II. Pt II. viii.2.

CH. XXXII.

THE SERVICES WHICH A SUPERIORMAN RENDERS TO A STATE ENTITLE HIM, WITHOUT DOINGOFFICIAL DUTY, TO SUPPORT.

We have here aninstance of the insinuation repeatedly made by disciples ofMencius, that it was wrong in him to be supported by theprinces, while he would not take office under them. CompareIII. Pt I. iv.; Pt II. iv.: et al. Onthe nature of Mencius’ defence of his practice,see what I have said in the sketch of his Life and Characterin the Prolegomena.

The Ode quoted from is the 8th ofBook IX. Pt I.

CH. XXXIII.

HOW A SCHOLAR SHOULD PREPAREHIMSELF FOR THE DUTIES TO WHICH HEASPIRES.

Par. 1.

Teen was,probably, a son of king Seuen of Ts‘e. In thetime of the Warring States, the number of wanderingscholars, seeking to be employed, had greatly increased.They were no favourites with Mencius, but he here answersthe prince according to his ideal of thescholar.

Par. 3.

On benevolenceas man’s dwelling-place, and righteousness asman’s path, see VI. Pt I. xi. We can hardlyunderstand “the great man” here as inxix. 4. There it denotes sages, the highest style of man;here, the individuals in the various grades of officialemployment, with an implication, perhaps, that such ascholar was fit for the highest office.

CH. XXXIV.

HOW MEN JUDGE WRONGLY OFCHARACTER OVERLOOKING, IN THEIR ADMIRATION OF ONEECCENTRIC EXCELLENCE, GREAT FAILURES ANDDEFICIENCIES.

Chung-tsze, or Mr. Chung, isthe Ch‘in Chung of III. Pt II. x., which chaptershould be read in connexion with this. On declining a smallbasket of rice, c., see VI. Pt I. x.6.

CH. XXXV.

WHAT SHUN AND HIS MINISTER OFJUSTICE WOULD HAVE DONE IF SHUN’S FATHER HADCOMMITTED A MURDER.

Par. 1.

T‘aou Ying, it is supposed, was adisciple of Mencius. We hardly know anything more of himthan what appears here. See Kaou Yaou’sappointment to be minister of Justice in the Book ofHistory, II. i. 20.

Par. 2.

He would haveapprehended Koo-sow, and dealt with him according to hiscrime.

Par. 4.

The“proper source” from which Kaou Yaouhad received the law, and especially that of death for themurderer, was Heaven. See Kaou Yaou’s“Counsels” in the Book of History, II.iii.

Par. 5.

This isMencius’ view of what Shun would have doneaccording to the Chinese idea of the relation of father andson.

CH. XXXVI.

HOW ONE’S ELEVATEDSOCIAL POSITION AFFECTS HIS AIR, AND MUCH MORE MAY ASCHOLAR’S POSITION BE EXPECTED TO DOSO.

Par. 1.

Fan was at thistime a city of Ts‘e, and still gives its name toa district of Puh Chow, in the department ofTung-ch‘ang. Chaou K‘e says that itwas an appanage of the king’s sons by hisconcubines. We cannot tell, however, whether it was in Fan,or after his arrival at the capital, that Mencius saw theking’s son or sons. The last sentence may also beunderstood—“Are notthey—the king’s sons—allmen’s sons?”

Par. 2.

“Thewide house of the world;”—see III. PtII. ii. 3.

Par. 3.

TheT‘eeh-chih was the gate of the capital of Sung onthe east.

CH. XXXVII.

THAT HE BE REALLY RESPECTEDSHOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO A SCHOLAR’S REMAININGIN THE SERVICE OF A PRINCE.

This utterancewas, no doubt, drawn forth by the conduct of the wanderingscholars of Mencius’ time, who were glad to be ata court for what they could get. There is admonition in italso to the kinglets and princes, who thought it enough, inorder to get help from men who might be really scholars, tosupport them.

CH. XXXVIII.

ONLY BY A SAGE ARE THE BODILYORGANS AND THE SENSES USED ACCORDING TO THEIRDESIGN.

Mencius’ meaning is that,besides his body and his senses, man has his mind, with theprinciples of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, andknowledge; and the mind ought to rule the body. This is thewill of Heaven.

CH. XXXIX.

REPROOF OF KUNG-SUNCH‘OW FOR SEEMING TO ASSENT TO THE PROPOSALTO SHORTEN THE PERIOD OF MOURNING. Compare Ana.XVII. xxi.

Par. 1.

The mourninghere referred to was that of three years for a parent; butperhaps the king wanted to shorten the period in other casesas well.

Par. 3.

The“king’s son” here, it issupposed, was a son by a concubine, and he was prevented bythe jealous or other opposition of the queen proper fromcompleting the full period of mourning. We cannot saywhether this was the case or not. Other explanations of ithave been devised; but it is not worth while to discussthem.

CH. XL.

FIVE WAYS IN WHICH THE TEACHING OF THE SUPERIOR MAN ISEFFECTED.

Par. 1.

The wish of thesuperior man in all cases is one and the same,—toteach. His methods are modified, however, by the differentcharacters of men. Five methods are specified here, and VI.Pt I. xvi. gives us another.

Par. 2.

This class onlywant the influence of the superior man, as plants need therain and dew. So was it, it is said, with Confucius and hisdisciples Yen Hwuy andTsăng-tsze.

Par. 3.

So was it withConfucius and the virtuous Jen K‘ew and MinTsze-k‘ëen, with the talented Tsze-looand Tsze-kung.

Par. 4.

So was it withConfucius and Fan-ch‘e (Ana. II. v.: et al. ), with Mencius and WanChang.

Par. 5.

So was it withConfucius and Ch‘in K‘ang (Ana. XVI.xiii.), with Mencius and E Che (III. Pt I. v.). The bestexample of the case, however, is that of the influence ofConfucius on our philosopher (IV. Pt II.xxii.).

CH. XLI.

THE TEACHER OF TRUTH MUST NOTLOWER HIS DOCTRINES TO ADAPT THEM TO THE CAPACITY OF HISLEARNERS:—A LESSON TO KUNG-SUNCH‘OW.

Par. 2.

E;—see IV. Pt II. xxiv.: et al.

Par. 3.

“Ina way, however, which makes the thing leap before thelearner;”—the phrase,“leaping-like,” which requires to beso much supplemented, is difficult. It belongs, I think, tothe superior man in all the action which is represented. Noman can be taught how to hit; that is every man’sown act. But he is taught to shoot, and that in so lively amanner, that the hitting also is, as it were, set forthbefore him. So with the teacher and learner of truth. As thelearner tries to do as he is taught, he will be found layinghold of what seemed unapproachable.

CH. XLII.

ONE MUST LIVE OR DIE WITH HISPRINCIPLES, ACTING FROM HIMSELF, NOT WITH REGARD TOOTHER MEN.

A man must direct his course fromhis own conviction of what is right, appearing in officewhen it is befitting, disappearing in obscurity, when to bein office would be inconsistent with hisprinciples.

CH. XLIII.

DIFFERENT CLASSES WHOM MENCIUSWOULD NOT RECEIVE INTO HIS SCHOOL. HOW HE REQUIRED THESIMPLE PURSUIT OF TRUTH IN THOSE WHOM HE TAUGHT. Compare VI. Pt II. ii.

Par. 1.

Kăngof T‘ăng was, it is said, a youngerbrother of the ruler of T‘ăng. Hisrank made Kung-too suppose that more than ordinary respectshould have been shown to him, and yet it was one of thosethings, no doubt, which made Mencius jealously watch hisspirit.

Par. 2.

The two thingson which Kăng presumed were, it is supposed, hisrank and his talents and virtue.

CH. XLIV.

WHERE VIRTUES ARE WANTING,DECENCIES CANNOT BE EXPECTED. PRECIPITATE ADVANCES AREFOLLOWED BY SPEEDY RETREATS.

CH. XLV.

THE DIFFERENT SPHERES OFKINDNESS OR LOVINGNESS, OF BENEVOLENCE, AND OFAFFECTION.

Compare the language of Confuciuson the graduated scale of regard and behaviour to differentclasses of men in the Doctrine of the Mean, XX. 12. Theutterance here was directed, most probably, against theMihist doctrine of loving all equally.

CH. XLVI.

ON KNOWING AND PURSUING WHATIS MOST IMPORTANT TO BE KNOWN ANDPURSUED:—ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASES OF YAOU ANDSHUN, AND BY OPPOSITE INSTANCES.

Par. 1.

See theconversation of Confucius with Fan Ch‘e in Ana.XII. xxii., where the principles enunciated here by Menciusare implied. The first two Parts of the Book of History mayalso be referred to. In them we have Yaou and Shun lookingout for the best men whom they could be friendly with andemploy, and attending to the things which in their time andcircumstances were most required for the well-being of theempire.

Par. 2.

Theillustrations here are of men neglecting what is important,and concerned about what is trivial in comparison. For thereferences to customs at meals, see the Le Ke, I. Pt I. iii.54—59. To tear off the roasted meat from a bonewith the teeth was but a small matter compared with such anexhibition of gluttony as the other clauses speakof.

CH. I.

THE OPPOSITE WAYS OF THEBENEVOLENT AND THOSE WHO ARE NOTBENEVOLENT:—AN EMPHATIC CONDEMNATION OF KINGHWUY OF LËANG.

Par. 1.

King Hwuy ofLëang;—see on I. Pt I. i. 1. See thegradation of loving regards in the benevolent in Pt I. xlv.With what is said of those who are not benevolent, we maycompare Pt I. xliv.

Par. 2.

“Hetore and lacerated his people;”—thecharacters suggest the idea of the king’s dealingwith his people as rice is dealt with when it is boiled to apulpy mass. “He sacrificed hisson;”—see I. Pt I. v.1.

CH. II.

HOW ALL THE FIGHTINGS IN THE CH‘UNTS‘ËW WEREUNRIGHTEOUS:—A WARNING TO THE WARRING STATESOF MENCIUS’ TIME.

Par. 1.

“TheSpring and Autumn;”—see the 5th volumeof my larger work, “The Ch‘unTs‘ew, with the Tso Chuen.”“Wars”—the term, accordingto the phraseology of the Spring and Autumn, should betranslated “battles;” but Menciusmeant, I believe, to indicate by it all the operations ofwar mentioned in the Classic of Confucius. We have there 23battles or fightings, 213 attacks or smitings, with amultitude of “incursions,”“sieges,” “carryingsaway,” “surprises,”c.

Par. 2.

“Punitive,” or perhaps,from the composition of the Chinese term, I should saycorrective, “expeditions” werecompetent only to the king, who might carry them out in hisown person, or entrust them to one of the princes, or to acombination of them. And some of the presidents of theStates in the Ch‘un Ts‘ew period mightin a measure plead his delegation for their proceedings.Compare what Mencius says in VI. Pt II. vii.2.

CH. III.

WITH WHAT ABATEMENT OF FAITHIN IT MENCIUS READ THE BOOK OFHISTORY.

Par. 1.

The utterancehere seems at first sight of it in Chinese tomean—“It would be better to have nobooks, than to put entire credit in them;” butthe reference in par. 2 shows that Mencius had in mind“the Book” parexcellence, —the Book ofHistory.

Par. 2.

See the Book ofHistory, V. iii. The par. referred to in the next par. here,about the bloodshed, is the 9th.“Passages” is literally“tablets,” referring to the slips ofwood or bamboo, on which the characters were pricked outwith a stylus.

Par. 3.

The slaughterhere described was made by the forces of the tyrant Chowturning against one another, and not by the troops of“the most benevolent” king Woo. Theamount of it is probably exaggerated; but something of thekind is easily conceivable.

Some writers think thatMencius expressed himself so strongly, foreseeing whatprecedents for their abnormal courses might in future timebe sought in the Book of History by rebels and oppressors.Compare our philosopher’s rule for theinterpretation of the Book of Poetry in V. Pt I. iv.2.

CH. IV.

COUNSEL INTENDED FOR RULERS,—THAT THEYSHOULD NOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE DECEIVED BY MEN WHOWOULD ADVISE THEM TO WAR. GRAND SUCCESS IS TO BEOBTAINED BY BENEVOLENCE.

Par. 1.

Compare IV. PtI. xiv., and VI. Pt II. ix.

Par. 2.

See the sayingat the beginning of par. 3 of the precedingchapter.

Par. 3.

See I. Pt II.xi. 2: et al.

Par. 4.

In the Prefaceto the Book of History, par. 3, it is said that on theoccasion referred to here Woo had 300 war chariots, and 300guards. Much has been written on the difference between thetwo statements, but it is needless to enter here on thematter. Mencius wants to show that Woo’s forceswere very small as compared with those of hisopponent;—and so, no doubt, theywere.

Par. 5.

See the Book ofHistory, V. i. Pt II. 9; but the text of that Classic ishardly recognizable in Mencius’ version of it,and the meaning of Woo’s words in the two Worksis different. I do not know how to account for the differenttexts.

Par. 6.

See the note onpar. 2 of chapter ii.

CH. V.

REAL ATTAINMENTS MUST BE MADE BY THE LEARNER FORHIMSELF.

For the general sentiment compare PtI. xli. The same names of workers in wood, c.,occur in III. Pt II. iv.

CH. VI.

THE EQUANIMITY OF SHUN IN POVERTY AND ASEMPEROR.

CH. VII.

THE THOUGHT OF ITSCONSEQUENCES SHOULD MAKE MEN CAREFUL OF THEIRCONDUCT:—ILLUSTRATED BY THE RESULT OF KILLINGTHE NEAR RELATIVES OF ANOTHER.

This remarkwas made, probably, as observed by Choo He, with referenceto some particular case which had come underMencius’ observation. It was a maxim of Chinesesociety, sanctioned by Confucius, that “a manshould not live under the same heaven with the slayer of hisfather, nor in the same State with the slayer of his elderbrother.”

CH. VIII.

THE BENEVOLENCE OF ANCIENTRULE AND THE SELFISHNESS OF MODERN SEEN IN THEREGULATIONS ABOUT THEFRONTIER-GATES.

Par. 1.

Anciently theobject contemplated by these gates was to prevent theingress or egress of parties dangerous to theState.

Par. 2.

InMencius’ time they were maintained chiefly forthe collection of duties.—Compare II. Pt I. v.3.

CH. IX.

HOW A MAN’SINFLUENCE DEPENDS ON HIS OWN EXAMPLE ANDPROCEDURE.

His wife and children are the mostamenable to a man’s example and orders, butunless he is all right in his example and procedure, theywill not be or do what is right;—how much lessother men! On the latter part compare Ana. XIII.xiii.

CH. X.

CORRUPT TIMES ARE PROVIDED AGAINST BY ESTABLISHEDVIRTUE. Compare the Doctrine of the Mean, XX.16.

CH. XI.

A MAN’S TRUEDISPOSITION WILL APPEAR IN SMALL MATTERS, WHEN A LOVE OFFAME MAY HAVE ENABLED HIM TO DO GREATTHINGS.

Choo He says onthis:—“A man is seen not so much inthings that require an effort as in things which he thinkslittle of. By bearing this in mind when we observe him, wecan see what he really rests in.” ChaouK‘e, on the contrary, takes the utterancesuperficially, as an approval of the love offame.

CH. XII.

THREE THINGS ARE ESSENTIAL TOTHE WELL-BEING OF A STATE:—THE RIGHT MEN; THERULES OF PROPRIETY; AND WISEADMINISTRATION.

Par. 1.

This conditionnot obtaining, such men will leave the State, and then itwill become as if no men were in it.

Par. 3.

The variousbusiness of government refers to all the sources of revenueand their administration.

CH. XIII.

ONLY BY THE BENEVOLENT CAN THEKINGDOM BE GOT.

A commentatorobserves:—“From the dynasty ofTs‘in downwards, there have been cases when theempire was got by men without benevolence; but it has beenlost again in such instances after one or tworeigns.”

CH. XIV.

THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENTS OFA COUNTRY IN RESPECT OF THEIR IMPORTANCE;—THERULER, THE TUTELARY SPIRITS, AND THEPEOPLE.

Par. 1.

Translated intoour modes of thinking, the three elements in a nation wouldbe,—the ruler, the established religion, and thepeople. It is not easy to determine the exact force of theterms by which the second element isdescribed;—whether we are to understand merelythe altars to the tutelary Spirits, or those Spiritsthemselves. Choo He takes the former view; othercommentators maintain the latter;—and with them Iam inclined to agree. Of course when the presiding Spiritswere changed, the place and form of their altars might alsobe changed.

Par. 2.

This shows thatthe people are the most important constituent in a country.“The peasantry” is here equivalent to“the people,” the land being thesource of the maintenance of all classes, and the originalconstitution of the Chinese nation as a whole, as well as ofevery State, being based on a recognition of this. Even thehighest authority therefore came from thepeople.

Par. 3.

This shows thatthe tutelary Spirits of a State were of more importance thanits ruler.

Par. 4.

This shows thatthe people were still more important than the tutelarySpirits. They were appointed and worshipped for the good ofthe people; the people did not exist for them.—Nochapter in his Works shows the boldness ofMencius’ thinking more thanthis.

CH. XV.

THAT PIH-E AND HWUY OF LEW-HEAWERE SAGES IS PROVED BY THE PERMANENCE OF THEIRINFLUENCE.

Compare V. Pt II. i., and thereferences there given. I do not think that Mencius intended sages here to be understood in thehighest sense of the name. Confucius is “theteacher of ten thousandgenerations.”

CH. XVI.

THE PRINCIPLE OF BENEVOLENCEIN MAN’S NATURE, AND IN HISCONDUCT.

Compare VI. Pt I. xi. 1. See also theDoctrine of the Mean, XX. 5.

CH. XVII.

THE DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICHCONFUCIUS LEFT LOO AND TS‘E.

SeeV. Pt II. i. 4.

CH. XVIII.

THE REASON OF CONFUCIUS BEINGIN STRAITS BETWEEN CH‘IN ANDTS‘AE.

See Ana. XI. ii., whichputs it beyond doubt that by “the superiorman” here we are to understand Confucius. So todesignate him, however, is not after the usual style of ourphilosopher.

CH. XIX.

MENCIUS COMFORTS ONE MIHK‘E UNDER CALUMNY BY THE REFLECTION THATDISTINGUISHED MEN WERE MORE ESPECIALLY EXPOSED TO SUCH ATHING.

Par. 1.

MihK‘e was, it is supposed, a scholar of the time.He was smarting, we must assume, under some calumny when hehad this conversation with Mencius.

Par. 3.

See the Book ofPoetry, Pt I. iii., Ode I. 4, and Pt III. i. Ode III. 8. Itis difficult to see why Mencius should apply the formerpassage to Confucius, and the latter to kingWăn.

CH. XX.

HOW OF OLD MEN OF WORTH LED ONMEN BY THEIR EXAMPLE, WHILE IN MENCIUS’ TIMEIT WAS TRIED BY BULERS TO URGE MEN CONTRARY TO THEIREXAMPLE.

Of old laws and example wenttogether in the ruling class; in Mencius’ timethere remained the laws, but the example was allbad.

CH. XXI.

THAT THE CULTIVATION OF THEMIND SHOULD NOT BEINTERMITTED.

Kaou-tsze,—see on VI. PtII. iii. 1. The individual here would seem to be the same asthe one in II. Pt II. xii. 2. Chaou K‘e says thatafter studying with Mencius for some time, and before hefully understood his principles, he went off and addictedhimself to some other teacher, so that what our philosopherhere says to him was with reference to this course and itsconsequences.

CH. XXII.

REFUTATION OF AN ABSURD REMARKOF KAOU-TSZE ABOUT YU’S MUSIC BEING BETTERTHAN THAT OF KING WĂN.

What Kaouinsisted on as the basis of his assertion was only theeffect of time or long use. As Yu was long anterior to kingWăn, those of his bells which remained werenecessarily more worn than the more recent ones, but thisdid not imply any superiority of the music which they made.At the entrance to a gate the road contracts, and all thecarriages which had been distributed over its breadth areobliged to run in the same ruts, which hence are deeperthere than elsewhere. How much more must this be the casewhen in the case supposed we have to think of the two-horsedcarriages of the Hëa dynasty, followed by thethree-horsed ones of the Shang, and those by the four-horsedof the Chow!

CH. XXIII.

HOW MENCIUS KNEW WHERE TO STOPAND MAINTAIN HIS OWN DIGNITY IN HIS INTERCOURSE WITH THEPRINCES.

Par. 1.

Ch‘in Tsin,—see II. Pt. II.iii.; et al. At T‘ang, thename of which is still preserved in the village ofKan-t‘ang, district of Tseih-mih, departmentLae-chow, Shan-tung, the rulers of Ts‘e, it wouldappear, kept grain in store, and on some previous occurrenceof famine, Mencius had advised the king to open the granaryand give out its contents. In the mean time, however, he hadnot found the king willing to obey his higher counsels, andintended to leave the State. He considered that his work inTs‘e was done, and that it would be inconsistentwith his character to make such an application as he haddone before.—I must believe also that the famineat this time was not very severe.

Par. 2.

It did notbelong to Fung Foo, now an officer and scholar, to befighting with tigers and playing the part of abravo.

CH. XXIV.

THE SUPERIOR MAN SUBJECTS THEGRATIFICATION OF HIS NATURAL APPETITES TO THE WILL OFHEAVEN, AND PURSUES THE DOING OF GOOD WITHOUT THINKINGTHAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HE CAN DO MAY BE LIMITED BY THATWILL.

Par. 1.

Every appetitenaturally desires its unlimited gratification, but a limitedamount or an entire denial of such gratification may be thewill of Heaven; and the superior man submits to that will.He holds that the appetites belong to the part of hisconstitution which is less noble;—see VI. Pt I.xiv.

Par. 2.

Underneath thisparagraph there lies the Mencian doctrine of human nature asformed for the practice of what is good.—Choo Hesays well on the whole:—“I have heardit observed by my master that the things mentioned in bothof these paragraphs are in the constitution of our nature,and are limited also by the appointment of Heaven. Mankind,however, consider that the former five are more especiallynatural, and, though they may be prevented from obtainingthem, still desire them; and that the latter five are indeedappointed by Heaven, but if the fulfilment of them does notcome to them readily, they do not go on to put forth theirstrength to attain to it. On this account Mencius shows whatis most important in each case, that he may induce a broaderway of thinking in regard to the latter class, and repressthe way of thinking in regard to theformer.”

CH. XXV.

THE CHARACTER OF YOH-CHING.DIFFERENT DEGREES OF ATTAINMENT INCHARACTER.

Par. 1.

ChaouK‘e says that Haou-săng Puh-hae was aman of Ts‘e. Nothing is known of him.Yoh-ching,—see I. Pt II. xvi., etal., especially VI. Pt II. xiv.

Par. 3.

It is assumedhere that the general verdict of mankind will be on the sideof goodness. Hence when a man is desirable, and commands universal liking, he mustbe a good man.

Par. 8.

Compare withthis what is said in the Doctrine of the Mean, ch. xxiv.,that “the individual possessed of completesincerity is like a Spirit.” It is said that theexpression in the text is stronger than that there, but thetwo are substantially to the same effect.Ch‘ing-tsze says here, “Sage andbeyond our knowledge denotes the utmost profundity ofsage-hood, what is unfathomable by men. We are not tosuppose that above the sage there is another style ofman,—the spirit-man.” Some wouldindeed say here—“the divineman,” but that is a rendering of the Chinese termwhich it never admits of; and yet in applying to man theterm appropriate to Him whose way is in the sea and Hisjudgments a great deep, Chinese writers are guilty ofblasphemy in the sense of derogating from the prerogativesof God.

CH. XXVI.

RECOVERED HERETICS SHOULD BERECEIVED WITHOUT CASTING THEIR OLD ERRORS IN THEIRTEETH.

Par. 1.

Many of thecommentators protest against its being supposed from thewords of Mencius that he thought worse of the errors of Mihthan he did of those of Yang. It is certainly not easy tounderstand the process of conversion as indicated by ourphilosopher. We must rank Yang as farmore astray than Mih. “Turn toorthodoxy” is, literally, “turn to thelearned.” “The learned” inChinese phrase is equivalent to our “theorthodox.” The name is still claimed by thefollowers of Confucius in opposition to the Taouists andBuddhists.

Par. 2.

Not theorthodox of China only have dealt with recovered heretics inthe way that Mencius condemns.

CH. XXVII.

THE JUST EXACTIONS OF THEGOVERNMENT SHOULD BE MADE DISCRIMINATINGLY ANDCONSIDERATELY.

The tax of cloth and silk wasdue in summer, that of grain after harvest, and personalservice,—in war, building, road-making,c., in winter, when it would not interfere with thelabours of husbandry. The government ought to require themat their proper seasons, and only one at atime.

CH. XXVIII.

THE PRECIOUS THINGS OF THEPRINCE OF A STATE, AND THE DANGER OF HIS OVERLOOKINGTHEM FOR OTHER THINGS.

CH. XXIX.

A LITTLE ABILITY, WITHOUT AKNOWLEDGE OF GREAT PRINCIPLES, MAY BE A PERILOUSTHING:—ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASE OFP‘WAN-SHING KWOH.

CompareConfucius’ prediction of the death ofTsze-loo;—Ana. XI. xii. Nothing is known of theP‘wan-shing Kwoh here, though ChaouK‘e says that he had wished to be a disciple ofMencius, but had soon gone away, not understanding what heheard.

CH. XXX.

AN AWKWARD DISAPPEARANCE OF ASANDAL FROM MENCIUS’ LODGING. HIS READINESSTO RECEIVE LEARNERS WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO THEIR PASTHISTORY.

T‘ăng,—seeon I. Pt II. xiii. “The upper palace”was the name, probably, of a palace in the capital ofT‘ăng, appropriated to the lodging ofhonourable visitors.

CH. XXXI.

A MAN HAS ONLY TO GIVEDEVELOPMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD WHICH ARE NATURALTO HIM AND SHOW THEMSELVES IN SOME THINGS, TO BEENTIRELY GOOD AND CORRECT.

Par. 1.

Compare II. PtI. vi.; et al. The sentiment of thischapter is continually insisted on by Mencius; but itsupposes that man has much more power over himself than hereally has.

Par. 3.

“Thou,”“Thou,” is a style of address greatlyat variance with Chinese notions of propriety. It can onlybe used with the very young and the very mean. However itmay be submitted to occasionally, there is a real feeling ofdislike to it; and if a man be as careful to avoid all otherthings which would make him be looked down upon, orliberties be taken with him, he will everywhere quit himselfas a righteous man.

CH. XXXII.

THE WAY TO ARRIVE AT WHAT ISREMOTE IS TO ATTEND TO WHAT IS NEAR. WHAT ARE GOOD WORDSAND GOOD PRINCIPLES. WHEREIN MEN ERR IN DEALING WITHTHEMSELVES AND OTHERS.

Par. 1.

“Donot go below the girdle,”—see the Bookof Rites, I. Pt II. ch. iii. 14, where we have the rule forlooking at the sovereign, the eyes not going above hiscollar nor below his girdle. Generally, the ancient rulewas—not to look at a person below the girdle, sothat all above might be considered as plain and near,beneath the eyes. Chaou K‘e says merely that“words not below the girdle are from near theheart.”

Par. 2.

This is theexplanation of good principles,—compendious, butof extensive application. It is a good summary of theteaching of “The GreatLearning.”

CH. XXXIII.

THE VIRTUE OF THE HIGHESTSAGES, AND HOW OTHER MEN MAY TRY TO FOLLOWIT.

Par. 1.

Compare Pt I.xxx.

Par. 2.

Here is thehighest virtue, where everything is done right, with nomotive beyond the doing so. If the dead be mourned for asthe tribute due to them from the living, a depraving elementhas been admitted into the grief.

Par. 3.

Here is avirtue equally correct as the above, but from anintellectual constraint.

CH. XXXIV.

HE WHO UNDERTAKES TO COUNSELTHE GREAT SHOULD IN HIS TASTES AND PRINCIPLES BE FARABOVE THEM.

Par. 1.

The“great men” here are merely thesocially great. Mencius had special reference to the princesand nobles of his time, dignified by their position, butwith no corresponding moral qualities.

Par. 2.

This is a gooddescription of Mencius’ own tastes andprinciples, but it is somewhatmagniloquent.

CH. XXXV.

THE REGULATION OF THE DESIRESIS ESSENTIAL TO THE HEALTHY MORAL NOURISHMENT OF THEMIND.

A truly valuableutterance.

CH. XXXVI.

THE FILIAL FEELING OFTSĂNG-TSZE SEEN IN HIS NOT EATINGSHEEP’S DATES.

Par. 1.

Tsăng Seih andTsăng-tsze,—see IV. Pt I. xix. The“sheep’s date” was,probably, the fruit of the zizyphusjujuba.

Par. 2.

Seih’s liking for thesheep’s dates was peculiar, so that the sight ofthem brought him vividly back to his son, who thereforecould not bear to eat such dates. There are many rules foravoiding the names of parents, ancestors, rulers,c.;—see the Book of Rites, I. Pt I. Ch.v. 15—20; et al. This ispeculiar, probably, to the Chinese, to avoid calling a sonby the name of the father.

CH. XXXVII.

THE CHARACTER OF MANY OFCONFUCIUS’ DISCIPLES. THE SAGE HAS ONEOBJECT,—TO GET MEN TO PURSUE THE PERFECTPATH. HE HATES ALL MERE SEMBLANCES, AND ESPECIALLY THOSEWHO ARE CONSIDERED BY THE MULTITUDE GOOD, CAREFUL MEN,WHO YET HAVE NO HIGH AIM ORAMBITION.

Par. 1.

See Ana. V.xxi.; though the text there is considerably different fromwhat we find here. Perhaps Kung-sun Ch‘ow quotedloosely from memory.

Par. 2.

Most ofMencius’ reply here is taken from the words ofConfucius in Ana. XIII. xxi.

Par. 4.

K‘inChang was the Laou mentioned in Ana. IX. vi. 4.Tsăng Seih is the same who appears in thepreceding chapter. Of Muh P‘ei nothing isknown.

Par. 8.

The first partof the saying here attributed to Confucius is not found inthe Analects. For the second see XVII.xiii.

Parr. 9 to 12

contain agood description of the parties in hand.

Par. 12.

These sayings of Confucius are only found here.Such a string of them is not in the sage’s style.The notes of Ch‘ing,—see Ana. XV. x.6.

CH. XXXVIII.

ON THE TRANSMISSION OF THELINE OF DOCTRINE FROM YAOU TO CONFUCIUS. SAGES MAY BEEXPECTED TO ARISE AT INTERVALS OF ABOUT FIVE HUNDREDYEARS. MENCIUS MIGHT HIMSELF CLAIM TO BE A TRANSMITTEROF CONFUCIUS’DOCTRINES.

Par. 1.

According tothe received chronology, from the commencement ofYaou’s reign to T‘ang were more than550 years. Mencius uses a round number.

Par. 2.

FromT‘ang to king Wăn were more than 600years. Lae Choo was, perhaps, Chung-hwuy,T‘ang’s minister;—see theBook of History, IV. ii.

Par. 3.

SanE-săng or San-e Săng was an ableminister of king Wăn; but little more is known ofhim.

Par. 4.

The concludingtwo sentences wonderfully vex commentators; but all agreethat Mencius somehow takes on himself the duty andresponsibility of handing down the doctrines ofConfucius.—Compare what he says in II. Pt II.xiii.; III. Pt II. x.; etal.

Table of Contents

About Liberty Fund

About The Online Library of Liberty

Copyright and Fair Use

PROLEGOMENA.

CHAPTER I.: OF THE WORKS OF MENCIUS.

SECTION I.: THEIR RECOGNITION UNDER THE HAN DYNASTY, AND BEFORE IT.

SECTION II.: CHAOU K‘E AND HIS LABOURS UPON MENCIUS.

SECTION III.: OTHER COMMENTATORS.

SECTION IV.: INTEGRITY; AUTHORSHIP; AND RECEPTION AMONG THE CLASSICAL BOOKS.

CHAPTER II.: MENCIUS AND HIS OPINIONS.

SECTION I.: LIFE OF MENCIUS.

SECTION II.: HIS INFLUENCE AND OPINIONS.

APPENDIX.

CHAPTER III.: OF YANG CHOO AND MIH TEIH.

SECTION I.: THE OPINIONS OF YANG CHOO.

SECTION II.: THE OPINIONS OF MIH TEIH.

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART I.

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART II.

UNIVERSAL LOVE. PART III.

THE WORKS OF MENCIUS.*

BOOK I.**

KING HWUY OF LËANG. PART I.

KING HWUY OF LEANG. PART II.

BOOK II.*

KUNG-SUN CH‘OW. PART I.

KUNG-SUN CH‘OW. PART II.

BOOK III.*

T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG. PART I.

T‘ĂNG WĂN KUNG. PART II.

BOOK IV.

LE LOW. PART I.

LE LOW. PART II.

BOOK V.*

WAN CHANG. PART I.

WAN CHANG. PART II.

BOOK VI.*

KAOU-TSZE. PART I.

KAOU-TSZE. PART II.

BOOK VII.*

TSIN SIN. PART I.

TSIN SIN. PART II.