more for the satisfying of the feelings of the survivors. The care of living parents, on the other hand, is itself good. He who is not lacking in this will always feel it necessary to provide proper burial for them. 290. Three years' mourning (p. 348) intimately connected with the former, is firmly insisted on by Confucianists, and indeed obtains to the present day. (See Art. 191.) (Concerning blood-revenge, see Art. 347.) (c.) Reciprocal Relations between Father and Son. 291. Concerning these Mencius only mentions "goodwill" (p. 88). 292. And "mutual attachment" (p. 127), as those that should rule-first, of course, on the side of the father, and then from the son. 293. From both there should be "no bitterness in urging to do good" (pp. 184, 213), no cause of offence. (Cf. Art. 284.) This is the teaching of Mencius on the fundamental idea of Chinese social life. We may say that we too possess the peculiar characteristic of the same. We see the same idea recurring in all the other social relations, specially, however, developed in those of the sovereign and his officials (court servants). We find this idea in absolute authority on one side and strict subordination on the other. In case of immoral conduct on the part of the father, the son should offer passive resistance, so as to preserve the moral standpoint. The great essential is unconditioned authority, which yet ought to obtain recognition in an ethical manner. CHAPTER II. BRETHREN, ELDER AND YOUNGER. By this is signified the brotherly relation, and chiefly the subordination of the younger to the elder brother. 294. Brotherhood is "the fruit of righteousness" (p. 189). In the house amongst brothers and sisters commences the carrying out of right opinions. It is, however, to be well considered that the essential of this is not equality of position, but the direct recognition of diversity of rank, both with Confucius and Mencius. That so long as both are children, the younger brother should give way to the older, is based upon the very nature of things; this is here extended to the whole life. 295. Works educationally. 296. Strengthens the state. 297. Causes mutual confidence (p. 101). This is justified by Mencius even in cases of deception, as with Duke Chow. Notwithstanding that confidence is too often misplaced in one's nearest relatives, Mencius certainly seized the right point of view morally. So long as there exists any moral connection amongst those concerned, confidences will establish themselves, whilst frequent deceptions set friendship in flames and destroy the last atom of confidence. 298. Makes itself known as sympathy, attachment, and foresight (p. 223). "A disciple asked Mencius, 'His parents set Shun to work to complete the threshing 1 See Digest of Confucius, p. 75. floor; when the ladder had been taken away his father burnt the threshing-floor. They set him to clean out a well; scarcely was he out of it than they came to bury him in it. His brother Seang said, "The plan of covering in the city-founding prince (in the well) is all of my weaving. Oxen and sheep shall be my parents', the threshing-floor my parents', the harp mine, the bow mine, my two sistersin-law will I require to serve me." He went and entered into Shun's palace. Shun played upon the harp on the couch. His brother said, "I think with anxious care upon the government," and blushed. Shun answered, "This whole crowd of officials do thou govern for me." Do we know whether or not Shun perceived that his brother wished to kill him?' Mencius answered, 'How should he not have known it? Was his brother sorrowful? so was Shun also sorrowful. Did he rejoice? then Shun also rejoiced.'" In p. 224 we find a supplement to this. There the same disciple said to Mencius, "The brother (Seang) made it his daily business to kill Shun. When Shun became emperor, he only banished him. How is this?' Mencius answered, 'He rewarded him. Some think it to be banishment.' The scholar said, 'Shun banished the superintendent of works and one other official, slew the prince of San Meaou, and imprisoned K'wanhin; these four delinquents, the inhuman, were removed, and the realm acquiesced. Seang was the most inhuman, and Shun rewarded him with Yeupé. Had then the people of Yeupé sinned? Does a humane man really act thus, that he removes other people but rewards his younger brother?' He answered, 'A humane man does not retain his anger, cherishes no ill-will against his brother, but loves him heartily, and that is enough. Hearty affection for him wishes him honoured, love for him wishes him wealthy. Rewarding him with Yeupé made him both honoured and wealthy. On the other hand, being himself emperor, could hearty affection and love be named whilst his brother remained a commoner?' 'Permit me to ask' (continued the disciple), 'why some thought it to have been banishment?' Answered, 'Seang had nothing to do in his state; the emperor sent a plenipotentiary who should govern the state and render the revenues of it: therefore it is called banishment. Could it be permitted that he should oppress any subjects? But nevertheless Shun wished to be able to see him constantly, so he came continually to the court. He received Yeupé without tribute or government-that is plainly implied." In the foregoing is indicated an ideal relation between brother and brother, according to the view of Mencius and his followers. But we find a great deficiency in the complete absence of indignation against the brother's sin; of moral abhorrence of the criminal intention which might well be united with the greatest individual affection. This deficiency continues to adhere to the ethics of Mencius, even though we must regard the history on which it is founded as a fiction. Shun was already co-regent, and yet he was to have repaired the threshing-floor and cleaned out the well single-handed. Further, his brother goes to the palace to take both of Shun's wives, the daughters of the reigning emperor, for himself, and to appropriate to himself or to give to his parents the property which had been lent by Yaou to Shun. This is all ridiculous. We have in the foregoing all that Mencius teaches concerning the relation of one brother to another. The weakness of his ethics thus comes more plainly to the light. Not only is the far too great consideration given to procuring honours and riches a marked error; it leads in the end to nepotism, which has caused nothing but evil. Even reigning princes do not thereby strengthen their position, viz., by raising many of their nearest relatives to high offices, except when these are also individuals of great ability. So it is in every department of life. That brothers should mutually act in a brotherly way is moral; but it is also an element of morality that they be placed only in positions correspond L |