《中国人的性格》第十九章 孝悌为先

打开网易新闻 查看精彩图片

《中国人的性格》是美国传教士阿瑟·史密斯（明恩溥）基于1872年赴华传教期间的社会观察撰写的著作，首版英文名《Chinese Characteristics》于19世纪末问世，。作者在华生活逾五十年，书中融合人类学视角与传教士立场，记录了晚清民众的性格特征与文化形态。

全书以27个主题章节剖析中国人行为模式，包含“保全面子”“省吃俭用”等生活哲学，以及“漠视精确”“因循守旧”等社会现象。通过对比西方工业文明，着重探讨东方特有的生存韧性，如环境适应力与疼痛耐受性。书中案例多源自山东乡村生活经历，涉及衣食住行、孝悌观念等主题，部分结论因宗教立场存在视角争议。该著作开创西方研究中国国民性先河，被译成多国文字，成为近代中西文化互鉴的重要文本。

第十九章 孝悌为先

讨论中国人的性格，不能不谈谈孝顺。这可不是个容易对付的课题。“孝顺”与我们不得不采用的许多其他概念一样，难以用英语词语将它准确地翻译过来。其意义也和我们所理解的大相径庭。汉语中还有不少包含这一意义的概念，其中与“孝顺”联系最紧密，也最常用的一个是“礼”。为了对此加以说明，并为讨论中国人的“孝顺”性格提供一个背景知识，最好先引用卡莱尔先生的一段话（引自《中央王国》）：“礼是中国人所有思想观念的集中体现；在我看来，中国可以贡献给世界的最合适、最完美的专著就是《礼记》。中国人的感情靠礼来满足；他们的职责靠礼来实现；他们的善恶靠礼来评判；人与人之间自然的关系靠礼来维系——总而言之，这是一个由礼来控制的民族，每个人都作为道德的、政治的和宗教的人而存在，受家庭，社会和宗教等等多重关系的制约。”对这段话，威廉姆斯博士的评价最令人信服，他说：“将‘礼’译为‘ceremony’很不准确，‘ceremony’的意义太过贫乏，而‘礼’不仅指人的外在品行，还包括支配所有真正的礼仪和礼貌的正确原则。”

翻阅一下“四书”和其他古代典籍，尤其是《孝经》，最容易让人确信，中国人十分重视孝顺。目前，我们只关注中国人现实生活中的孝顺观，看看他们是如何理解孝顺的，孝顺是如何成为中国人独一无二的特性的。要切记，中国人的孝顺是多侧面的，并不是在所有的条件下或所有的观察家都能发现其实质。

１８７７年，在上海召开的传教士会议上，雅蒂斯博士宣读了一篇论“祖先崇拜”的论文。在这篇精心写作的论文中，他具体阐述了自己三十年来在中国的观察与经验。在论文的开头，作者提出，祖先崇拜只是孝顺的一种表现形式，接着又说，“孝”这一概念，容易产生误导，我们应当警惕，以免误人歧途。在我们了解的所有民族中，中国人是最不孝顺的，不服从父母，他们一旦知道了自己所需要的需要，就开始固执己见。”曾在中国生活了三十三年的、著名的中国典籍翻译家莱格博士，则断然否定雅蒂斯博士的观点。他宣称，他在中国的生活经验与此截然相反。这种相互矛盾的现象表明，人与人之间总存在着不同的观点，就像两支温度计一样。要想获得正确、全面的观念，就必须将这些互相冲突的观点联系起来，综合考虑。

长期的经验证明，中国的孩子，没有接受过如何正确听从父母的教育，我们把立即服从父母当成一条规则，他们对此却一无所知。可是，这些不受约束或半受约束的孩子长大之后，情形就不再像我们所预料的那样了。中国人认为，“树大自然直”，这个比喻就是说，孩子长大之后，自然知道自己应该怎样做，它也可能讲的是其他意思，但它确实为孝顺行为提供了理论依据。不过，这种现象似乎是由人们的孝顺观念、受教育的方式和各地孝顺的典型共同促成的。《孝经》中说：“五刑之属三千，而罪莫大于不孝。”还有一种最普通的说法：“孝为万德之首，其诚存于心，而不在行。以行而论，世无孝子。”中国人还特别指出，任何道德缺陷都可追溯到孝心。违背礼节是因为缺少孝心，不忠心耿耿是因为缺少孝心，不克尽厥职是因为缺少孝心，对朋友不忠诚是因为缺少孝心，临阵胆怯是因为缺少孝心。这样，孝顺的内涵就远远超出了行为的范畴，不仅包含了行为的动机，还包含了所有的其他道德内容。

一般人认为，孝顺实际上是出于感激。《孝经》敕令章对此作了强调。据孔子说，父母死，要守孝三年，因为“子生三年，然后娩于父母之怀”。守孝三年似乎成了对父母这三年养育之恩的回报。就是小羊羔吃奶时，还知道要跪着呢（羔羊，兽也，跪哺乳）！孝顺的人还要善待自己的身体，因为它是父母赐予的。不善待它，就等于忘恩负义。孝顺的人，当父母在世时，要竭力服侍；去世后，要经常祭拜。孝顺的人，要继承父道，子曰：“三年无改于父之道，可谓孝矣。”父母明显有了错误，作子女的也可以努力促使他们纠正。威廉姆斯博士引用《礼记》中的一段话，可以为证：“父母有过，下气怡然。柔声以谏，谏若不入，起敬起孝，说则复谏。不说，与其得罪于乡党州闾，宁孰谏。父母怒，不说，而挞之流血，不敢疾怒，起敬起孝。”令人担忧的是，在大多数西方国家，可以完全不听父母的告诫，然而，就连在中国都很少听到这样的事。在《论语》第二章，我们发现，孔子对孝作出了几种不同的解释。在不同的情况下，他的解释也不同。第一次是在鲁国一位名叫孟懿的官员请教时，他只简单地说了一句：“无违。”意思很容易理解，就是“不违背”，那位官员自然也是这样理解的，可是，孔子和他的同胞一样，也具有“拐弯抹角的天赋”。他并不亲自对孟懿作出解释，而是直到后来，他的弟子樊迟驾车送他时，才又重提这件事。樊迟听了，自然问他：“夫子，您是什么意思呢？”孔子就抓住这个机会，作出了如下解释：“生，事之以礼，死，葬之以礼，祭之以礼。”毫无疑问。孔子希望樊迟能将这话转述给孟懿，这样，孟懿就会理解“无违”的真正含义了。还有一次是回答“孝”意味着什么。孔子强调对父母要事之以礼，否则，只照顾他们的身体，就无异于把他们当成马、狗来看待了。引用上面那些，是想表明，中国人的孝顺观主要是应该依从父母的愿望，满足他们的需求。在中国，这是个古老的观念，孔子曾明确地说：“今之孝者，是谓能养。”这也说明他感到当时与古代已大不相同了，而他对古代则心往神驰，希望复古。夫子的这些言谈已过去好多世纪了。可他的教诲已深深地渗入到中国人的骨髓中。如果今天他仍活着的话，我们深信，他会更坚定地说：“今之孝者，是谓能养！”我们现在已经了解了中国人是如何看待孝顺与其他社会职责间的关系，可我们还不清楚中国人在现实中如何理解孝顺。随便挑十个未受过教育的中国人来问，怎样才算是“孝顺”？可能会有九个人回答：“不让父母生气。”父母生气是因为子女没有好好地服侍。说得简单些，还是应该“无违”，这是孔子的话，尽管他这样说时，包含着“特殊的意义”。

如果读者想知道有关的实例，就请看一看《二十四孝图》，它讲述的故事在中国可谓家喻户晓。其中讲到东汉的一位少年，六岁时随父亲去拜访一位朋友。他发现，那人家里的桔子特别好吃，于是，就像一般的中国人一样，偷偷地塞了两个桔子在袖筒里。但在他告辞鞠躬时，桔子掉了下来，气氛变得十分尴尬。可是，这位少年非常镇静，他马上跪在主人面前，说了两句令其名声留传千古的话：“家母喜欢吃桔子，我是拿给她的。”他的父亲是当时的一位高官，在西方人看来，这孩子不可能没其他机会为他的母亲弄到桔子，但在中国人眼里，他却成了典型的孝子，因为小小年纪就能够为母亲着想，不过，也或许是因为他反应敏捷，很快就能想出借口吧。晋代也有一位少年，因为父母没有蚊帐，就想出了一个绝妙的权宜之计，每天早早地上床，整夜静静地躺着，一动不动，甚至连扇子也不摇一下，为的是让家里的蚊子都来叮自己，好使父母能睡个安稳觉。与他同时代还有一个少年，在家里很不受继母的喜欢，可他的继母有个爱好，就是喜欢吃鲤鱼，但在冬天又弄不到。于是，这少年就不加思索地脱去衣服，躺在冰上。冰下的一对鲤鱼看到这情形，大受感动，就钻了个冰窟隆，跳了上来，以供他那暴戾的继母享用。

中国人认为，“偏袒妻儿”是一种不孝之举。《孝经》敕令章中曾把它与赌博并列。《二十四孝图》中有一个典型的例子。一位汉朝人，家中很穷，没有足够的粮食来养活老母和一个年仅三岁的儿子。他就对妻子说：“我们太穷，甚至连母亲都养不起。但孩子会争母亲的口粮。为什么不把孩子埋了呢？孩子埋了，咱们以后可以再生；母亲死了，就不能再有了。”妻子不敢反对，就挖了个两尺多深的坑，可在坑底，他们挖出了一坛金子。坛子上刻着一些字，说这些金子是上天赐给这位孝子的。假如没挖到金子，孩子可能就真被活埋了。按照一般人的孝顺观念，这人的行为可以理解，做法也正确、“偏袒妻儿”的感情不应阻止他活埋儿子以使其祖母活下去。

中国人还相信，父母的痼疾、只要吃了子女的肉，就有可能治愈。这些肉应该做好后、让父母无意中吃下。即使不敢肯定会治愈，中国人认为总有可能。北京《邸报》上经常出现这类事例。笔者认识一个年轻人，为了给父母治病，就曾经从自己的腿上割下了一块肉。对那块伤疤，他一直十分自豪，就像个老兵一样。毫无疑问，这类事情并不普遍，不过也许并不罕见。

中国人的孝顺中，最重要的方面是孟子说的：“不孝有三，无后为大。”需要有后，是因为需要人继承香火，祭把祖先。这已成了生活中最重要的内容。同样因为这一点，中国的男孩子必须尽早成婚。三十六岁做祖父，在中国司空见惯。笔者的一位熟人，在弥留之际，曾责备自己有两不孝：一是不能亲自为老母亲料理后事；二是没安排好儿子的婚事。他的儿子当时只有十岁左右。这种想法，无疑会为大部分中国人所接受。

中国人休妻一般有七种理由，第一种就是不生男孩。对男孩的渴求，导致了纳妾制度。也随之产生了各种不幸。他们生男孩时就兴高采烈、趾高气扬；生了女孩，就神情沮丧、意气消沉。大部分的溺婴事件也与此有关，这种事南方比北方多。有时，人们甚至根本就不知道。想获得这方面的信息极为困难，因为人们对此讳莫如深。中国的私生子也不少，但无论男孩女孩，人们都不希望把他们留在世上。即使不能直接证明各地溺杀女婴的事件比实际上要少，但从道理上肯定活埋三岁小孩以便养活其祖母的行为，无论如何都不能逃脱杀人的罪责，即使是不受欢迎的女孩。

中国人守孝的观念，上文已作了阐述，原来要求应满三年，可实际上已缩短为二十七个月。在《论语》第一十七章，夫子的一个门徒就坚决反对守孝三年，坚持说一年就足够了。对此，夫子最后说，在三年守孝期间，君子不能行乐，但如果你把它缩短为一年，只要行乐时能心安，就行乐好了。可是，夫子明确评价他“不仁”。

守孝比一切社会职责都重要，作儿子的，为政府服役时除外，一生要为此付出很多时间。也有一些特别的孝子，会在父亲或母亲的坟前搭个棚，整天住在哪儿。最平常的做法是夜晚住在哪儿，白天照常生活。也有一些人情守礼仪，完全沉浸在悲痛中，什么事也不做。笔者也认识这样一个人，他对父母极尽孝道，在父母坟前守了很长时间，仍然心绪不宁，给全家带来了一个不必要的负担。但中国人对此极为赞赏，完全不考虑后果。履行仪式是绝对的，其他任何事情都无关紧要。

好多人为了给父亲或母亲置办体面的葬礼，卖掉了最后一块田，甚至扒屋卖棒。这种行为是一种社会性的错误，但又很不容易让中国人明白。它符合中国人的天性，也符合礼，所以，他们觉得必须去做。

中国人极重视礼仪和孝行，胡克神父依据自己的亲自经历，为我们提供了一个精彩的例子，那时，他来到中国，尚不足一年，住在南方某地。他雇用了一位家在北京的教师，教师家中有一位老母亲，母子已四年未通音信。有一次，神父要派一个信差到北京去，考虑到这是一次难得的机会，就让教师也写封信回家，听说信差马上要走，这位教师就从隔壁教室叫了一个学生，对他说：“过来，拿着纸，替我给我母亲写封信，别耽误时间，信差马上要走了。”胡克先生十分惊讶，就问那孩子是不是认识老师的母亲，结果是他根本就不知道还有这样一个人，“你没告诉过他，他知道写些什么呢？”老师不以为然地说：“他不知道该写些什么？他学作文已有一年多了，掌握了不少文雅的辞令，你认为，他不清楚儿子该怎样给母亲写信吗？”孩子很快把信写好了，而且还封了口，老师只是签了名。这封信可以送给帝国的任何一位母亲，她们收到信时，也都会同样满心欢喜。

由于孝行对孩子的影响不同，就导致了两种情况。当然，两种极端的例子在哪儿都能找到。杀死父母的现象并不多见，这种人一般都是疯子，但对他的处罚与常人没什么不同。普遍百姓，终日在穷困潦倒中痛苦地呻吟，父母对子女过分苛酷，有时在所难免，所以才会有这种事情发生。另一方面，主动代父接受死刑的事也时有发生，它有力地证明了孝心的真诚与力量。尽管做父亲的可能罪该万死。

西方基督教国家的家庭关系纽带十分松弛，对刚从这种纽带中解脱出来的西方人来说，中国的孝行的确有些吸引力。尊敬长者的品质就对盎格鲁一撒克逊民族特别有益。在西方，儿子长大后，想去哪儿就去哪儿，愿做什么就做什么。在中国人眼里，这有点像长大了的牛犊或驴驹，因为只有动物才不受礼的约束。站在中国人的立场思考一些问题，就会发现，我们还有许多社会行为需要改进，我们大多数人就像生活在玻璃房子中一样，确实应该小心谨慎，不能乱扔石子。不过，不重点强调一下孝顺的几个致命缺陷，一切讨论都将徒劳无功。

中国人的孝顺观念有五大缺陷，两个已经讨论过了，还有三个未讨论。第一是它对作儿女的，列举了一大堆义务，可是对父母的义务，却只字不提。在中国，提这类建议是多余的。而在世界其他各地，它一直都是必不可少的。神启的智慧曾引导使徒保罗，使他以精炼的语言道出了理想家庭的四大支柱：“你们作丈夫的，要爱你们的妻子，不可苦待她们。”“你们作妻子的，当顺从你们的丈夫，这在主里面是相宜的。”“你们作女儿的，要凡事听从父母，因为这是主所喜悦的。”“你们作父亲的，不要惹儿女的气，恐怕他们失了志气。”孔子道德思想中的那些世俗的智慧怎么能与这些意义深远的准则相比呢？所有的教义都不为女儿说话，全都为了儿子。在这方面，多少世纪以来，如果中国人不是色盲的话，怎么会没发现这是对人性的严重摧残呢？生为男身，就被家里奉为至宝，生为女身，则成了家中可怕的累赘，就算不一定被溺死，也一定会终生饱受歧视。

中国人认为，妻子是卑贱的。孔子没有说过丈夫应该对妻子如何，或妻子应该怎样对待丈夫。儒教只是要求男人应该依从父母，同时也强迫妻子这样做。妻子与父母产生矛盾时，因为妻子次要、卑贱，她就应该让步、屈服。中国家长制的社会结构存在着严重的弊病。它压抑人的某些天性，但又将另一些天性训化至极端；它使整个社会成了老年人的社会，青年一代则倍受压抑，处在从属地位。钢铁般的压力禁锢了人的思想，阻碍了社会的发展利有益的变革。

孝道中传种接代的宗旨是一系列弊病的根源。它要求，无论有没有养活孩子的条件，都必须生养。它导致了早婚与人口泛滥，使人们倍受贫困的煎熬。它也是一夫多妻制和纳妾制的根源，它永远是一个祸根。祖先崇拜真正是中华民族宗教信仰的集中体现。如果正确地理解的话，它是一个民族被迫套上的最沉重的苦轭。正如那茨博士在上面的那篇论文中指出的：令人恼火的是，数亿中国人都受无数死人的支配，“活着的一代受过去无数代人的控制。”对于令人窒息的保守主义来说，祖先崇拜是最好的形式与保证。如果保守主义不受到道德上的打击，在本世纪的最后十五年，中国如何能够使自己完全适应新的形势呢？如果中国人继续把过去的死人当做真正的神灵，他们如何能够向前迈出切实的一步呢？

我们认为，中国人的孝顺完全是由恐惧和自私造成的，这二者是左右人灵魂的最有力的因素。鬼魂因为具有制造灾难的力量，故而受到崇拜。孔子有一句富有智慧的格言：“敬鬼神而远之，可谓知矣。”忽略了供品，鬼魂就会发怒，接着就要报复。崇拜它们就是一种较保险的方式，这似乎就是各种崇拜死人观念的核心。活人之间，推理也同样简单。儿子孝顺老子，也要求自己的儿子尽孝，这就是养孩子的目的。“种树遮荫，养儿防老。”无论是老子，还是儿子，都很清楚这一点。“没有尿床的孩子，就没人坟前烧纸。”每一代都要偿还上一代的养育债，也要求下一代最大限度地偿还自己。因此，孝顺的品行就年复一年、代复一代地传了下来。

对于中国人过分夸张的孝顺，有一种忧郁的观点认为，中国人既没有把崇拜对象具体化为上帝，也没有能够认识到上帝的存在。祖先崇拜是孝顺最完美的，最终的表现形式，它纯粹是由泛神论、不可知论和无神论构成的。它把死人变成神，神也不过是死人而已。他们只对父母表示爱、感恩和畏惧，他们不知道天上的父，就是知道了，也毫无兴趣。中国人要么接受基督教，要么放弃祖先崇拜，二者不能共存。在这二者生死斗争中，适者生存。

英文原版：

XIX. FILIAL P1ETY

TO discuss the characteristics of the Chinese without mentioning filial piety, is out of the question. But the of the Chinese is not an easy subject to treat. These words, like many others which we are obliged to employ, have among the Chinese a sense very different from that which we are accustomed to attach to them, and a sense of which no English expression is an exact translation. This is also true of a great variety of terms used in Chinese, and of no one more than of the word ordinarily rendered“ceremony”(li), with which filial piety is intimately connected. To illustrate this, and at the same time to furnish a background for what we have to say of the characteristic under discussion, we cannot do better than to cite a passage from M. Callery (quoted in the“Middle Kingdom”):“Ceremony epitomises the entire Chinese mind; and in my opinion, the Book of Rites is per se the most exact and complete monograph that China has been able to give of herself to other nations. Its affections, if it has any, are satisfied by ceremony; its duties are fulfilled by ceremony; its virtues and vices are referred to ceremony; the natural relations of created beings essentially link themselves in ceremonial—in a word, to that people ceremonial is man as a moral, political, and religious being, in his multiplied relations with family, society, and religion.” Every one must agree in Dr. Williams's comment upon this passage, that it shows how“meagre a rendering is'ceremony'for the Chinese idea of li, for it includes not only the external conduct, but involves the right principles from which all true etiquette and politeness spring.”

One of the most satisfactory methods to ascertain the Chinese view of filial piety would be to trace the instruction which is contained on this subject in the Four Books, and in the other Classics, especially in the“Filial Piety Classic.” Our present object is merely to direct attention to the doctrine as put into practice by the Chinese, of whom, in the sense in which they understand it, is not merely a characteristic but a peculiarity. It must be remembered that Chinese filial piety is many-sided, and the same things are not to be seen in all situations or by all observers.

At the Missionary Conference held in Shanghai in the year 1877, a paper was read by Dr. Yates on“Ancestral Worship,” in which he embodied the results of his thirty years' experience in China. In one of the opening sentences of this elaborate essay, the author, after speaking of ancestral worship considered merely as a manifestation of filial piety, continues: "The term‘filial'is misleading, and we should guard against being deceived by it. Of all the people of whom we have any knowledge, the sons of the Chinese are most unfilial, disobedient to parents, and pertinacious in having their own way from the time they are able to make known their wants.” Dr. Legge, the distinguished translator of the Chinese Classics, who retired from China after thirty-three years' experience, has quoted this passage from Dr. Yates, for the purpose of most emphatically dissenting from it, declaring that his experience of the Chinese has been totally different. This merely illustrates the familiar truth that there is room for honest difference of opinion among men, as among thermometers, and that a correct view can only be reached by combining results that appear to be absolutely inharmonious into a whole that shall be even more comprehensive than either of its parts.

That Chinese children have no proper discipline, that they are not taught to obey their parents, and that as a rule they have no idea of prompt obedience as we understand it, is a most indubitable fact attested by wide experience. But that the later years of these ungoverned or half-governed children generally do not exhibit such results as we should have expected, appears to be not less a truth. The Chinese think and say that“the crooked tree, when it is large, will straighten itself," by which metaphor is figured the belief that children when grown will do the things which they ought to do. However it may be in regard to other duties, there really appears to be some foundation for this theory in the matter of filial behaviour. The occasion of this phenomenon seems to lie in the nature of the Chinese doctrine of filial piety, the manner in which it is taught, and the prominence which is everywhere given to it. It is said in the“Filial Piety Classic” that: “There are three thousand crimes to which one or the other of the five kinds of punishment is attached as a penalty, and of these no one is greater than disobedience to parents.” One of the many sayings in common circulation runs as follows: “Of the hundred virtues filial conduct is the chief, but it must be judged by the intentions, not by acts; for, judged by acts, there would not be a filial son in the world." The Chinese are expressly taught that a defect of any virtue, when traced to its root, is a lack of . He who violates propriety is deficient in filial conduct. He who serves his prince but is not loyal lacks . He who is a magistrate without due respect for its duties is lacking in . He who does not show proper sincerity towards his friends lacks filial piety. He who fails to exhibit courage in battle lacks filial piety. Thus the doctrine of filial conduct is seen to embrace much more than mere acts, and descends into the motives, taking cognisance of the whole moral being.

In the popular apprehension, the real basis of the virtue of filial conduct is felt to be gratitude. This is emphasised in the“Filial Piety Classic,” and in the chapter of the Sacred Edicts on the subject. The justification of the period of three years' mourning is found, according to Confucius, in the undoubted social fact that“for the first three years of its existence the child is not allowed to leave the arms of its parents," as if the one term were in some way an offset for the other. The young lamb is proverbially a type of filial behaviour, for it has the grace to kneel when sucking its dam. demands that we should preserve the bodies which our parents gave us, otherwise we seem to slight their kindness. Filial piety requires that we should serve our parents while they live, and worship them when dead. requires that a son should follow in the steps of his father. "If for the three years he does not alter from the way of his father," says Confucius, "he may be called filial." "But if the parents are manifestly in the wrong, does not forbid an attempt at their reformation, as witness the following, quoted by Dr. Williams from the Book of Rites: "When his parents are in error, the son, with a humble spirit, pleasing countenance, and gentle tones, must point it out to them. If they do not receive his reproof, he must strive more and more to be dutiful and respectful to them till they are pleased, and then he must again point out their error. But if he does not succeed in pleasing them, it is better that he should continue to reiterate reproof than permit them to do injury to the whole department, district, village, or neighbourhood. And if the parents, irritated and displeased, chastise their son till the blood flows from him, even then he must not dare to harbour the least resentment; but on the contrary, should treat them with increased respect and dutifulness." It is to be feared that in most Western lands the admonition of parents upon these terms would be allowed to fall into desuetude, and it is not to be wondered that we do not hear much of it even in China!

In the second book of the“Confucian Analects” we find record of several different answers which Confucius gave as to the nature of , his replies being varied according to the circumstances of the questioners. The first answer which is mentioned is that to an officer of the State of Lu, and is comprised in the compendious expression“wu-wei,” which he apparently left in the mind of the querist as a kind of seed to be developed by time and reflection. The words “wu-wei” simply mean "not disobedient," and it is natural that Mang I, the officer who had inquired, so understood them. But Confucius, like the rest of his countrymen since, had a "talent for indirection," and instead of explaining himself to Mang I, he waited until some time later when one of Confucius' disciples was driving him out, when the Master repeated the question of Mang I to this disciple, and also the reply. The disciple, whose name was Fan Ch‘ih, on hearing the words "wu-wei," very naturally asked, “What did you mean?” which gave the Master the requisite opportunity to tell what he really meant, in the following words: “That parents when alive should be served according to propriety, that when dead they should be buried according to propriety, and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.” The conversation between Confucius and Fan Ch‘ih was intended by the former to lead the latter to report it to Mang I, who would thus discover what was meant to be inferred from the words “wu-wei”! In other answers of the Master to the question, What is denoted by filial piety? Confucius laid stress upon the requirement that parents should be treated with reverence, adding that when they are not so treated, mere physical care for them is on a plane with the care bestowed upon dogs and horses.

These passages have been quoted in this connection, to show that the notion that consists largely in compliance with the wishes of parents, and in furnishing them what they need and what they want, is a very ancient idea in China. Confucius expressly says: "The filial piety of the present time means (only) the support of one's parents," implying that in ancient times, of which he was so fond, and which he wished to revive, it was otherwise. Many ages have elapsed since these conversations of the Master took place, and his doctrine has had time to penetrate the marrow of the Chinese people, as indeed it has done. But if Confucius were alive to-day, there is good reason to think that he would affirm more emphatically than ever, "The filial piety of the present time means only the support of one's parents.” That the popular conscience responds to the statement of the claims of filial piety, as to no other duty, has been already observed, but in the same connection it ought to be clearly understood what this is supposed to connote. If ten uneducated persons, taken at random, were to be asked what they mean by being "filial," it is altogether probable that nine of them would reply, "Not letting one's parents get angry," that is, because they are not properly served. Or, in a more condensed form, filial piety is“wu-wei," “not disobedient," which is what the Master said it is, albeit he used the words in“a Pickwickian sense.”

If any of our readers wish to see this theory in a practical form, let them consider the four-and-twenty ensamples of , immortalised in the familiar little book called by that name. In one of these cases, a boy who lived in the "After Han Dynasty," at the age of six paid a visit to a friend, by whom he was entertained with oranges. The precocious youth on this occasion executed the common Chinese feat of stealing two oranges, and thrusting them up his sleeve. But as he was making his parting bows the fruit rolled out, and left the lad in an embarrassing situation, to which, however, he was equal. Kneeling down before his host, he made the memorable observation which has rendered his name illustrious for nearly two millenniums: "My mother loves oranges very much, and I wanted them for her." As this lad's father was an officer of high rank, it would seem to an Occidental critic that the boy might have enjoyed other opportunities for gratifying her desire for oranges, but to the Chinese the lad is a classic instance of filial devotion, because at this early age he was thoughtful for his mother, or perhaps so quick at inventing an excuse. Another lad, of the Chin Dynasty, whose parents had no mosquito nets, at the age of eight hit upon the happy expedient of going to bed very early, lying perfectly quiet all night, not even brandishing a fan, in order that the family mosquitoes might gorge themselves upon him alone, and allow his parents to sleep in peace! Another lad of the same dynasty lived with a stepmother who disliked him, but as she was very fond of carp, which were not to be obtained during the winter, he adopted the injudicious plan of taking off his clothes and lying on the ice, which so impressed a brace of carp who had observed the proceeding from the under side that they made a hole in the ice and leaped forth in order to be cooked for the benefit of the irascible stepmother!

According to the Chinese teaching, one of the instances of unfilial conduct is found in“selfish attachment to wife and children." In the chapter of the Sacred Edict already quoted, this behaviour is mentioned in the same connection with gambling, and the exhortations against each are of the same kind. The typical instance of true filial devotion among the twenty-four just mentioned, is a man who lived in the Han Dynasty, and who, being very poor, found that he had not sufficient food to nourish both his mother and his child, three years of age. "We are so poor," he said to his wife, "that we cannot even support mother. Moreover, the little one shares mother's food. Why not bury the child? We may have another, but if mother should die we cannot obtain her again.” His wife dared not oppose him, and accordingly a hole was dug more than two feet deep, when a vase of gold was found with a suitable inscription, stating that Heaven bestowed this reward on a filial son. If the golden vase had not emerged, the child would have been buried alive, and according to the doctrine of , as commonly understood, rightly so. “Selfish attachment to wife and children” must not hinder the murder of a child to prolong the life of its grandparent.

The Chinese believe that there are cases of obstinate illness of parents, which can only be cured by the offering of a portion of the flesh of a son or a daughter, which must be cooked and eaten by the unconscious parent. While the favourable results are not certain, they are very probable. The Peking Gazette frequently contains references to cases of this sort. The writer is personally acquainted with a young man who cut off a slice of his leg to cure his mother, and who exhibited the scar with the pardonable pride of an old soldier. While such cases are doubtless not very common, they are probably not excessively rare.

The most important aspect of Chinese is indicated in a saying of Mencius, that: “There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.” The necessity for posterity arises from the necessity for continuing the sacrifices for ancestors, which is thus made the most important duty in life. It is for this reason that every son must be married at as early an age as possible. It is by no means uncommon to find a Chinese a grandfather by the time he is thirty-six. An acquaintance of the writer's accused himself upon his death-bed of having been unfilial in two particulars: first, that he had not survived long enough to bury his old mother; and second, that he had neglected to arrange for the marriage of his son, a child of about ten years of age. This view of filial piety would doubtless commend itself to the average Chinese.

The failure to have male children is mentioned first among the seven causes for the divorce of a wife. The necessity for male children has led to the system of concubinage, with all its attendant miseries. It furnishes a ground, eminently rational to the Chinese mind, for the greatest delight at the birth of sons, and a corresponding depression on occasion of the birth of daughters. It is this aspect of the Chinese doctrine which is responsible for a large proportion of the enormous infanticide which is known to exist in China. This crime is much more common in the south of China than in the north, where it often seems to be wholly unknown. But it must be remembered that it is the most difficult of all subjects upon which to secure exact information, just in proportion to the public sentiment against it. The number of illegitimate children can never be small, and there is everywhere the strongest motive to destroy all such, whatever the sex. Even if direct testimony to the destruction of the life of female infants in any region were much less than it is, it would be a moral certainty that a people among whom the burial alive of a child of three in order to facilitate the support of its grandmother is held to be an act of filial devotion, could not possibly be free from the guilt of destroying the lives of unwelcome female infants.

Reference has already been made to the theory of Chinese mourning for parents, which is supposed to consume three full years, but which in practice is mercifully shortened to twenty-seven months. In the seventeenth book of the“Confucian Analects” we read of one of the disciples of the Master, who argued stoutly against three years as a period for mourning, maintaining that one year was enough. To this the Master conclusively replied that the superior man could not be happy during the whole three years of mourning, but that if this particular disciple thought he could be happy by shortening it a year, he might do so, but the Master plainly regarded him as "no gentleman."

The observance of this mourning takes precedence of all other duties whatsoever, and amounts to an excision of so much of the lifetime of the sons, if they happen to be in government employ. There are instances in which extreme filial devotion is exhibited by the son's building a hut near the grave of the mother or father, and going there to live during the whole time of the mourning. The most common way in which this is done is to spend the night only at the grave, while during the day the ordinary occupations are followed as usual. But there are some sons who will be content with nothing less than the whole ceremonial, and accordingly exile themselves for the full period, engaging in no occupation whatever, but being absorbed by grief. The writer is acquainted with a man of this class, whose extreme devotion to his parents' grave for so long a time unsettled his mind and made him a useless burden to his family. To the Chinese such an act is highly commendable, irrespective of its consequences, which are not considered at all. The ceremonial duty is held to be absolute and not relative.

It is not uncommon to meet with cases of persons who have sold their land to the last fraction of an acre, and even pulled down the house and disposed of the timbers, in order to provide money for a suitable funeral for one or both of the parents. That such conduct is a social wrong, few Chinese can be brought to understand, and no Chinese can be brought to realise. It is accordant with Chinese instinct. It is accordant with li, or propriety, and therefore it was unquestionably the thing to be done.

The Abbé Huc gives from his own experience an excellent example of that ceremonial, filial conduct, which to the Chinese is so dear. While the Abbé was living in the south of China, during the first year of his residence in this Empire, he had occasion to send a messenger to Peking, and he bethought him that perhaps a Chinese schoolmaster in his employ, whose home was in Peking, would like to embrace the rare opportunity to send a message to his old mother, from whom he had not heard for four years, and who did not know of her son's whereabouts. Hearing that the courier was to leave soon, the teacher called to one of his pupils, who was singing off his lesson in the next room, "Here, take this paper, and write me a letter to my mother. Lose no time, for the courier is going at once.” This proceeding struck M. Huc as singular, and he inquired if the lad was acquainted with the teacher's mother, and was informed that the boy did not even know that there was such a person. "How then was he to know what to say, not having been told?” To this the schoolmaster made the conclusive reply: “Don't he know quite well what to say? For more than a year he has been studying literary composition, and he is acquainted with a number of elegant formulas. Do you think he does not know perfectly well how a son ought to write to a mother?” The pupil soon returned with the letter not only all written, but sealed up, the teacher merely adding the superscription with his own hand. The letter would have answered equally well for any other mother in the Empire, and any other would have been equally pleased to receive it.

The amount of filial conduct on the part of Chinese children to their parents will vary in any two places. Doubtless both extremes are to be found everywhere. Parricides are not common, and such persons are usually insane, though that makes no difference in the cruel punishment which they suffer. But among the common people, groaning in deepest poverty, some harsh treatment of parents is inevitable. On the other hand, voluntary substitutions of a son for the father, in cases of capital punishment, are known to occur, and such instances speak forcibly for the sincerity and power of the instinct of filial devotion to a parent, though this parent may be a deeply dyed criminal.

To the Occidental, fresh from the somewhat too loose bonds of family life which not infrequently prevail in lands nominally Christian, the theory of Chinese filial conduct presents some very attractive features. The respect for age which it involves is most beneficial, and might profitably be cultivated by Anglo-Saxons generally. In Western countries, when a son becomes of age he goes where he likes, and does what he chooses. He has no necessary connection with his parents, nor they with him. To the Chinese such customs must appear like the behaviour of a well-grown calf or colt to the cow and the mare, suitable enough for animals, but by no means conformable to li as applied to human beings. An attentive consideration of the matter from the Chinese standpoint will show that there is abundant room in our own social practice for improvement, and that most of us really live in glass houses, and would do well not to throw stones recklessly. Yet, on the other hand, it is idle to discuss the of the Chinese without making most emphatic its fatal defects in several particulars.

This doctrine seems to have five radical faults, two of them negative and three of them positive. It has volumes on the duty of children towards parents, but no word on the duty of parents to children. China is not a country in which advice of this kind is superfluous. Such advice is everywhere most needed, and always has been so. It was an inspired wisdom which led the Apostle Paul to combine in a few brief sentences addressed to his Colossian church the four pillars of the ideal home: "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.” “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” “Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.” “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." What is there in all Confucian morality which for practical wisdom can for a moment be put into competition with these far-reaching principles? The Chinese doctrine has nothing to say on behalf of its daughters, but everything on behalf of its sons. If the Chinese eye had not for ages been colour-blind on this subject, this gross outrage on human nature could not have failed of detection. By the accident of sex the infant is a family divinity. By the accident of sex she is a dreaded burden, liable to be destroyed, and certain to be despised.

The Chinese doctrine of puts the wife on an inferior plane. Confucius has nothing to say of the duties of wives to husbands or of husbands to wives. Christianity requires a man to leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. Confucianism requires a man to cleave to his father and mother, and to compel his wife to do the same. If the relation between the husband and his parents conflicts with that between the husband and his wife, the latter, as the lesser and inferior, is the relation which must yield. The whole structure of Chinese society, which is modelled upon the patriarchal plan, has grave evils. It encourages the suppression of some of the natural instincts of the heart that other instincts may be cultivated to an extreme degree. It results in the almost entire subordination of the younger during the whole life of those who are older. It cramps the minds of those who are subjected to its iron pressure, preventing development and healthful change.

That tenet of the Chinese doctrine which makes filial conduct consist in leaving posterity is responsible for a long train of ills. It compels the adoption of children, whether there is or is not any adequate provision for their support. It leads to early marriages, and brings into existence millions of human beings, who, by reason of the excessive pinch of poverty, can barely keep soul and body together. It is the efficient cause of polygamy and concubinage, always and inevitably a curse. It is expressed and epitomised in the worship of ancestors, which is the real religion of the Chinese race. This system of ancestral worship, when rightly understood in its true significance, is one of the heaviest yokes which ever a people was compelled to bear. As pointed out by Dr. Yates in the essay to which reference has been already made, the hundreds of millions of living Chinese are under the most galling subjection to the countless thousands of millions of the dead. "The generation of to-day is chained to the generations of the past." Ancestral worship is the best type and guarantee of that leaden conservatism to which attention has already been directed. Until that conservatism shall have received some mortal wound, how is it possible for China to adjust herself to the wholly new conditions under which she finds herself in this last quarter of the century? And while the generations of those who have passed from the stage continue to be regarded as the true divinities by the Chinese people, how is it possible that China should take a single real step forward?

The true root of the Chinese practice of filial piety we believe to be a mixture of fear and self-love, two of the most powerful motives which can act on the human soul. The spirits must be worshipped on account of the power which they have for evil. From the Confucian point of view, it was a sagacious maxim of the Master, that “to respect spiritual beings, but to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.” If the sacrifices are neglected the spirits will be angry. If the spirits are angry they will take revenge. It is better to worship the spirits by way of insurance. This appears to be a condensed statement of the Chinese theory of all forms of worship of the dead. As between the living, the process of reasoning is equally simple. Every son has performed his filial duties to his father, and demands the same from his own son. That is what children are for. Upon this point the popular mind is explicit. "Trees are raised for shade, children are reared for old age.” Neither parents nor children are under any illusions upon this subject. “If you have no children to foul the bed, you will have no one to burn paper at the grave." Each generation pays the debt which is exacted of it by the generation which preceded it, and in turn requires from the generation which comes after, full payment to the uttermost farthing. Thus is perpetuated from generation to generation, and from age to age.

It is a melancholy comment upon the exaggerated Chinese doctrine of piety that it not only embodies no reference to a Supreme Being, but that it does not in any way lead up to a recognition of His existence. Ancestral worship, which is the most complete and the ultimate expression of this filial piety, is perfectly consistent with polytheism, with agnosticism, and with atheism. It makes dead men into gods, and its only gods are dead men. Its love, its gratitude, and its fears are for earthly parents only. It has no conception of a Heavenly Father, and feels no interest in such a being when He is made known. Either Christianity will never be introduced into China, or ancestral worship will be given up, for they are contradictories. In the death struggle between them the fittest only will survive.