famine destroys this confidence (fidelity) and the child is used for food. Confucius taught Tsze Kung to part with food and hold fast fidelity. How is this? If you let go fidelity and hold fast food although fidelity is not desired, it will certainly be restored, but if you part with food and hold fast fidelity, although what you desire is fidelity it cannot be preserved.

(Anal p. 130). When the Master went to Wei, Yen Tsze (Yew) acted as driver of his carriage. The Master observed "How numerous are the people!" Yew said "Since they are thus numerous what more shall be done for them?" "Enrich them" was the reply. "And when they have been enriched what more shall be done?" The Master said

Teach them." Confucius advised Yen Yew to enrich them first and afterwards to instruct them, but taught Tsze Kung to part with food and hold fast fidelity. What difference is there between (the possession of) food and wealth? What distinction between (exhibiting) Fidelity and (receiving) Instruction? The instructions given to the two disciples were essentially different. Different things were held up to their esteem. What consistency is there in the ideas of Confucius as to governing a State?

CHAPTER XV.

(Anal. p. 149) Keu Peh Yuh sent a messenger with friendly enquiries to Confucius. Confucius said "What is your master engaged in ?" The messenger replied, "My master is anxious to make his faults few but he has not yet succeeded." He then went out and the Master said "A messenger indeed! A messenger indeed!" This is a censure. Those who explain the Lun Yu (Analects) say for what was he censured? He was blamed in that he answered humbly on behalf of another. The enquiry of Confucius saying what is your master engaged in ? meant really what is his occupation? not what is he doing as to self government? Seeing that Confucius thus enquired the messenger ought to have replied "My

Master is doing so and so, he manages such a department." Now he answered quite differently saying "He is anxions to make his faults few but he has not yet succeeded." How do we know that his reply did not miss the purport of the question ? Confucius blamed him; what was the real cause of his censuring the messenger? Did he blame his answering humbly on behalf of another ? or was it because his reply missed the point of the question? That which he censured was certainly one of these, but he did not make plain the fault when he said* "A messenger indeed! A messenger indeed!" Since that time all are dubious about this matter, not knowing in what way to regard the messenger as wrong. Han Tsze says "If a sentence is laconic the disciple should discuss its meaning." Is not the saying of Confucius A messenger indeed! verily laconic? Perhaps some one will say the idea of the Ch'un Ts'ew is to screen the worthies. Keu Peh Yuh was a worthy, therefore Confucius screened his messenger. If one wants to know his son's character, let him look to his friends. If one wants to judge of a ruler, let him look to his messenger.

If Peh Yuh were not a worthy then his messenger would have faults. The idea of the Ch'un Ts'ew is to screen the worthies, yet to censure every little fault. Now to withold censure so as to screen, yet to condemn every trifling fault, what could have been his meaning?

Supposing Confucius had wished to screen

*

Han Fei, a philosopher of the 3rd Cent. B.C., part of whose works in 20 books has came down to us. His subject is the philosophy of Government. He served first under the prince of Han and later under the prince of Tsin (the Burner), afterward called She Wang Ti, who highly esteemed his wisdom. Falling a victim to jealousy he committed suicide to avoid arrest, B.C. 230; cf. Mayers' Manual, p. 46; Wylie's Notes, p. 75,

+ It should be noted that the current interpretation following Choo He is that Confucius so exclaiming meant to praise the messenger for exhibiting a knowledge of his master's heart and

replying so humbly; see 四書味根錄

in loc.

Pih Yuh, he could have been silent; but he cried aloud saying “A messenger indeed! A messenger indeed!" letting every one know of his disapproval. What help is it towards the screening of any one to cry out in this manner?

CHAPTER XVI.

(Anal p. 185) Peih Heih inviting him to visit him, the Master was inclined to go. Tsze loo was displeased and said "Master formerly I have heard you say when a man in his own person is guilty of doing evil, a superior man will not associate with him. Peih Heih is in rebellion holding possession of Chung Mow; if you go to him what shall be said ?" The Master said "I did so. But is it not said, that, if a thing be really hard, it may be ground without being made thin? Is it not said that if a thing be really white, it may be steeped in a dark fluid without being made black? Am I a bitter gourd! How can I be hung up out of the way and not eat ?" Tsze loo in order to censure Confucius quoted to him his former saying. In olden time Confucius had uttered this saying wishing to get his disciples to use it as a rule of action. Tsze-loo adduced it by way of remonstrance. Confucius understood him and did not say that his former words were in sport, as if they were improper and not good to be followed, but said "Yes I did use those words, they certainly ought to be followed. But is it not said that if a thing be really hard it may be ground without being made thin? Is it not said that if a thing be really white it may be steeped in a dark fluid without being made black ?" When Confucius used these words did he succeed in solving Tsze loo's problem? "When a man in his own person is guilty of doing evil, a superior man will not associate with him." To explain this he ought to have said "There is nothing wrong about Peih Heih, there is still a good reason for going"; but he said "a hard thing may be ground without being made thin, white may be steeped in dye without

being made black." It is as if he had said, The man whose actions are consistent and pure may associate with the guilty. The superior man's conduct is weak and easily corrupted, so he alone ought not so to associate.

Confucius would not drink the water from the Robber's Spring';* Tsang-tsze would would not enter the gateway of the 'Coerced Mother.' They shunned evil and avoided corruption, being ashamed of a name at variance with propriety. Robber's Spring,' 'Coerced Mother,' were only unreal names, yet Confucius and Tsang were ashamed of them.

Peih Heih was really guilty of evil, yet Confucius desired to visit him.

It was right not to drink of the Robber's Spring, but to desire to visit Peih Heih was wrong. (Confucius once said) ‡ "Riches and honours acquired by unrighteousness are to me as a floating cloud." To pervert sound doctrine by partaking of a traitorous rebel's dainties, made that which he had said about the 'floating cloud' a mistake. There may be acting on expediency combined with a desire to act on principle, this is to follow the expedient and act on principle. When Tsze loo enquired into the matter, he ought to have said "Act on principle" without speaking of eating. There is a way of acting on expediency in order to act on principle, and there is a way of acting that is not expedient in order to seek food. "Am I a bitter gourd? How can I be hung up and not eat"? He compared himself to a bitter gourd. He said

"a man ought to seek office so as to eat dainties. I am not a bitter gourd to be hung up and not eat," to reprove Tsze100.

The reply of Confucius did not solve the problem of Tsze-loo. When Tsze-loo put his question, his idea was not that Confucius ought not to take office, but that he ought to choose a righteous State in which to enter upon it. Confucius compared himself to a bitter gourd. He simply wished to eat in peace. Moreover how despicable his words

are.

How was it that he sought office as a means of getting food? A superior man ought not thus to speak. A bitter gourd is hung up and does not eat, just as one is suspended and is out of office.

To withstand Tsze-loo he ought to have said 'Am I a bitter gourd to be suspended and be out of office'? But his 'am I to be hung up and not eat' is Confucius taking office not for the sake of acting on principle but to seek food. When a man takes office, the dominant idea is the coveting of dainties; what he says in accordance with the rules of propriety is that he does it to carry out a principle.

It is just the same as a man who marries. The dominant idea is lust; but what he professes according to propriety is that he does it for the sake of his parents. To marry might as well be directly said to be for the sake of lust, as to take office and then straightly say it is for food. The words of Confucius display his inner character without the slightest idea of ambiguity, without any fictitious appeal to the rules of propriety.

.

That is, he is simply an ordinary person, the very opposite of a superior man. Confucianists say that Confucius travelled about in response to invitations accompanied by gifts without being successful (in retaining office), and he was full of grief that his doctrine did not obtain a wide circulation. They altogether let slip his real character.

CHAPTER XVII.

(Anal. p. 183). Kung-shan Fuh-jaou when he was holding Pe, and in an attitude of rebellion, invited the Master to visit him; Tsze-loo who was rather inclined to go. said "Indeed you cannot go! Why must you think of going to see Kung-shan?" The Master said "Can it be without some reason that he has invited me ? If any one employ me may I not make an Eastern Chow ?" * To make an Eastern Chow he desired to carry out his principles. Kungshan and Peih-heih were both in rebellion. He desired to act on principle with Kungshan, but sought food with Peih Heih. The words of Confucius are utterly inconsistent. Inconsistency in language implies want of steady perseverance in conduct. He wandered round and no one employed him. Was there any reason for this? (Anal. p. 180) "Yang Ho wished to see him, but Confucius would not go to see him." He called him to take office, but he would not accept it. Why was he so pure? When Kung-shan and Peih Heih called him, he wished to go. How came he so corrupt? Kung-shan, Peih Heih, and Yang Ho all were in rebellion. But the latter kept Ke Kwant a prisoner. The two former were just as bad; the principle of the invitation (whether by messenger or in person) was the same. But he wished to accept that of Kung-shan and would not see Yang Ho. Wherein was Kung-shan the better, or Yang Ho not good enough? When Tsze-loo enquired about Kung-shan's invitation Confucius ought to have explained, saying that he was as good as Peih Heih, and that they did not appear to be so very bad after all. A. B. HUTCHINSON.

Book x. Section 30.-Mencius satirized.

CHAPTER I.

"Mencius went to see king Hwuy of Leang. The king said, venerable Sir, since you have not counted it far to come here a distance of a thousand li,* may I enquire how to act so as to 'profit' my kingdom? Mencius said benevolence and righteousness are my only topics. Why must we use that word 'profit' ?" (p. 1). Now there are two kinds of profit, there is the profit of riches and possessions, and the profit arising from auspicious tranquillity. King Hwuy said, what must I employ to profit my kingdom? How did Mencius know that the king did not desire the profit arising from auspicious tranquillity. But Mencius straightway took him to mean the profit of riches and possessions. The Yih-king says, "It will be 'advantageous' to see the great man ; to

cross the great river has advantage.' "Kheen possesses origin, luxuriance, 'benefit' and completion." The Sheung-shoo says, "The blackhaired people likewise receive benefits.'"+ These are all advantages arising from auspicious tranquillity, The carrying out of benevolence and righteousness procures the advantages of auspicious tranquillity. Mencius did not speak thus. If he had asked king Hwuy what do you mean by saying 'profit my kingdom ?' and king Hwuy had said the profit of riches and possessions, he ought to have been answered accordingly. But it is possible that Mencius did not perceive the drift of king Hwuy's question, so he straightway answered concerning the profit of riches and possessions. If the king really asked concerning these, Mencius adduced nothing by which such a result should follow. If the question concerned the advantage of auspicious tranquillity yet Mencius answered

* Canon McClatchie, Yih King, Bk. I. i. 3, p. 1 and 5, 1 p. 37.

† Shoo, P. V. Bk. xxx. 6.