《中國人的性格》第十九章 孝悌為先

《中國人的性格》是美國傳教士阿瑟·史密斯（明恩溥）基于1872年赴華傳教期間的社會觀察撰寫的著作，首版英文名《Chinese Characteristics》于19世紀末問世，。作者在華生活逾五十年，書中融合人類學視角與傳教士立場，記錄了晚清民眾的性格特征與文化形態(tài)。

全書以27個主題章節(jié)剖析中國人行為模式，包含“保全面子”“省吃儉用”等生活哲學，以及“漠視精確”“因循守舊”等社會現(xiàn)象。通過對比西方工業(yè)文明，著重探討東方特有的生存韌性，如環(huán)境適應力與疼痛耐受性。書中案例多源自山東鄉(xiāng)村生活經(jīng)歷，涉及衣食住行、孝悌觀念等主題，部分結(jié)論因宗教立場存在視角爭議。該著作開創(chuàng)西方研究中國國民性先河，被譯成多國文字，成為近代中西文化互鑒的重要文本。

第十九章 孝悌為先

討論中國人的性格，不能不談談孝順。這可不是個容易對付的課題。“孝順”與我們不得不采用的許多其他概念一樣，難以用英語詞語將它準確地翻譯過來。其意義也和我們所理解的大相徑庭。漢語中還有不少包含這一意義的概念，其中與“孝順”聯(lián)系最緊密，也最常用的一個是“禮”。為了對此加以說明，并為討論中國人的“孝順”性格提供一個背景知識，最好先引用卡萊爾先生的一段話（引自《中央王國》）：“禮是中國人所有思想觀念的集中體現(xiàn)；在我看來，中國可以貢獻給世界的最合適、最完美的專著就是《禮記》。中國人的感情靠禮來滿足；他們的職責靠禮來實現(xiàn)；他們的善惡靠禮來評判；人與人之間自然的關(guān)系靠禮來維系——總而言之，這是一個由禮來控制的民族，每個人都作為道德的、政治的和宗教的人而存在，受家庭，社會和宗教等等多重關(guān)系的制約。”對這段話，威廉姆斯博士的評價最令人信服，他說：“將‘禮’譯為‘ceremony’很不準確，‘ceremony’的意義太過貧乏，而‘禮’不僅指人的外在品行，還包括支配所有真正的禮儀和禮貌的正確原則。”

翻閱一下“四書”和其他古代典籍，尤其是《孝經(jīng)》，最容易讓人確信，中國人十分重視孝順。目前，我們只關(guān)注中國人現(xiàn)實生活中的孝順觀，看看他們是如何理解孝順的，孝順是如何成為中國人獨一無二的特性的。要切記，中國人的孝順是多側(cè)面的，并不是在所有的條件下或所有的觀察家都能發(fā)現(xiàn)其實質(zhì)。

１８７７年，在上海召開的傳教士會議上，雅蒂斯博士宣讀了一篇論“祖先崇拜”的論文。在這篇精心寫作的論文中，他具體闡述了自己三十年來在中國的觀察與經(jīng)驗。在論文的開頭，作者提出，祖先崇拜只是孝順的一種表現(xiàn)形式，接著又說，“孝”這一概念，容易產(chǎn)生誤導，我們應當警惕，以免誤人歧途。在我們了解的所有民族中，中國人是最不孝順的，不服從父母，他們一旦知道了自己所需要的需要，就開始固執(zhí)己見。”曾在中國生活了三十三年的、著名的中國典籍翻譯家萊格博士，則斷然否定雅蒂斯博士的觀點。他宣稱，他在中國的生活經(jīng)驗與此截然相反。這種相互矛盾的現(xiàn)象表明，人與人之間總存在著不同的觀點，就像兩支溫度計一樣。要想獲得正確、全面的觀念，就必須將這些互相沖突的觀點聯(lián)系起來，綜合考慮。

長期的經(jīng)驗證明，中國的孩子，沒有接受過如何正確聽從父母的教育，我們把立即服從父母當成一條規(guī)則，他們對此卻一無所知。可是，這些不受約束或半受約束的孩子長大之后，情形就不再像我們所預料的那樣了。中國人認為，“樹大自然直”，這個比喻就是說，孩子長大之后，自然知道自己應該怎樣做，它也可能講的是其他意思，但它確實為孝順行為提供了理論依據(jù)。不過，這種現(xiàn)象似乎是由人們的孝順觀念、受教育的方式和各地孝順的典型共同促成的。《孝經(jīng)》中說：“五刑之屬三千，而罪莫大于不孝。”還有一種最普通的說法：“孝為萬德之首，其誠存于心，而不在行。以行而論，世無孝子。”中國人還特別指出，任何道德缺陷都可追溯到孝心。違背禮節(jié)是因為缺少孝心，不忠心耿耿是因為缺少孝心，不克盡厥職是因為缺少孝心，對朋友不忠誠是因為缺少孝心，臨陣膽怯是因為缺少孝心。這樣，孝順的內(nèi)涵就遠遠超出了行為的范疇，不僅包含了行為的動機，還包含了所有的其他道德內(nèi)容。

一般人認為，孝順實際上是出于感激。《孝經(jīng)》敕令章對此作了強調(diào)。據(jù)孔子說，父母死，要守孝三年，因為“子生三年，然后娩于父母之懷”。守孝三年似乎成了對父母這三年養(yǎng)育之恩的回報。就是小羊羔吃奶時，還知道要跪著呢（羔羊，獸也，跪哺乳）！孝順的人還要善待自己的身體，因為它是父母賜予的。不善待它，就等于忘恩負義。孝順的人，當父母在世時，要竭力服侍；去世后，要經(jīng)常祭拜。孝順的人，要繼承父道，子曰：“三年無改于父之道，可謂孝矣。”父母明顯有了錯誤，作子女的也可以努力促使他們糾正。威廉姆斯博士引用《禮記》中的一段話，可以為證：“父母有過，下氣怡然。柔聲以諫，諫若不入，起敬起孝，說則復諫。不說，與其得罪于鄉(xiāng)黨州閭，寧孰諫。父母怒，不說，而撻之流血，不敢疾怒，起敬起孝。”令人擔憂的是，在大多數(shù)西方國家，可以完全不聽父母的告誡，然而，就連在中國都很少聽到這樣的事。在《論語》第二章，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，孔子對孝作出了幾種不同的解釋。在不同的情況下，他的解釋也不同。第一次是在魯國一位名叫孟懿的官員請教時，他只簡單地說了一句：“無違。”意思很容易理解，就是“不違背”，那位官員自然也是這樣理解的，可是，孔子和他的同胞一樣，也具有“拐彎抹角的天賦”。他并不親自對孟懿作出解釋，而是直到后來，他的弟子樊遲駕車送他時，才又重提這件事。樊遲聽了，自然問他：“夫子，您是什么意思呢？”孔子就抓住這個機會，作出了如下解釋：“生，事之以禮，死，葬之以禮，祭之以禮。”毫無疑問。孔子希望樊遲能將這話轉(zhuǎn)述給孟懿，這樣，孟懿就會理解“無違”的真正含義了。還有一次是回答“孝”意味著什么。孔子強調(diào)對父母要事之以禮，否則，只照顧他們的身體，就無異于把他們當成馬、狗來看待了。引用上面那些，是想表明，中國人的孝順觀主要是應該依從父母的愿望，滿足他們的需求。在中國，這是個古老的觀念，孔子曾明確地說：“今之孝者，是謂能養(yǎng)。”這也說明他感到當時與古代已大不相同了，而他對古代則心往神馳，希望復古。夫子的這些言談已過去好多世紀了。可他的教誨已深深地滲入到中國人的骨髓中。如果今天他仍活著的話，我們深信，他會更堅定地說：“今之孝者，是謂能養(yǎng)！”我們現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)了解了中國人是如何看待孝順與其他社會職責間的關(guān)系，可我們還不清楚中國人在現(xiàn)實中如何理解孝順。隨便挑十個未受過教育的中國人來問，怎樣才算是“孝順”？可能會有九個人回答：“不讓父母生氣。”父母生氣是因為子女沒有好好地服侍。說得簡單些，還是應該“無違”，這是孔子的話，盡管他這樣說時，包含著“特殊的意義”。

如果讀者想知道有關(guān)的實例，就請看一看《二十四孝圖》，它講述的故事在中國可謂家喻戶曉。其中講到東漢的一位少年，六歲時隨父親去拜訪一位朋友。他發(fā)現(xiàn)，那人家里的桔子特別好吃，于是，就像一般的中國人一樣，偷偷地塞了兩個桔子在袖筒里。但在他告辭鞠躬時，桔子掉了下來，氣氛變得十分尷尬。可是，這位少年非常鎮(zhèn)靜，他馬上跪在主人面前，說了兩句令其名聲留傳千古的話：“家母喜歡吃桔子，我是拿給她的。”他的父親是當時的一位高官，在西方人看來，這孩子不可能沒其他機會為他的母親弄到桔子，但在中國人眼里，他卻成了典型的孝子，因為小小年紀就能夠為母親著想，不過，也或許是因為他反應敏捷，很快就能想出借口吧。晉代也有一位少年，因為父母沒有蚊帳，就想出了一個絕妙的權(quán)宜之計，每天早早地上床，整夜靜靜地躺著，一動不動，甚至連扇子也不搖一下，為的是讓家里的蚊子都來叮自己，好使父母能睡個安穩(wěn)覺。與他同時代還有一個少年，在家里很不受繼母的喜歡，可他的繼母有個愛好，就是喜歡吃鯉魚，但在冬天又弄不到。于是，這少年就不加思索地脫去衣服，躺在冰上。冰下的一對鯉魚看到這情形，大受感動，就鉆了個冰窟隆，跳了上來，以供他那暴戾的繼母享用。

中國人認為，“偏袒妻兒”是一種不孝之舉。《孝經(jīng)》敕令章中曾把它與賭博并列。《二十四孝圖》中有一個典型的例子。一位漢朝人，家中很窮，沒有足夠的糧食來養(yǎng)活老母和一個年僅三歲的兒子。他就對妻子說：“我們太窮，甚至連母親都養(yǎng)不起。但孩子會爭母親的口糧。為什么不把孩子埋了呢？孩子埋了，咱們以后可以再生；母親死了，就不能再有了。”妻子不敢反對，就挖了個兩尺多深的坑，可在坑底，他們挖出了一壇金子。壇子上刻著一些字，說這些金子是上天賜給這位孝子的。假如沒挖到金子，孩子可能就真被活埋了。按照一般人的孝順觀念，這人的行為可以理解，做法也正確、“偏袒妻兒”的感情不應阻止他活埋兒子以使其祖母活下去。

中國人還相信，父母的痼疾、只要吃了子女的肉，就有可能治愈。這些肉應該做好后、讓父母無意中吃下。即使不敢肯定會治愈，中國人認為總有可能。北京《邸報》上經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)這類事例。筆者認識一個年輕人，為了給父母治病，就曾經(jīng)從自己的腿上割下了一塊肉。對那塊傷疤，他一直十分自豪，就像個老兵一樣。毫無疑問，這類事情并不普遍，不過也許并不罕見。

中國人的孝順中，最重要的方面是孟子說的：“不孝有三，無后為大。”需要有后，是因為需要人繼承香火，祭把祖先。這已成了生活中最重要的內(nèi)容。同樣因為這一點，中國的男孩子必須盡早成婚。三十六歲做祖父，在中國司空見慣。筆者的一位熟人，在彌留之際，曾責備自己有兩不孝：一是不能親自為老母親料理后事；二是沒安排好兒子的婚事。他的兒子當時只有十歲左右。這種想法，無疑會為大部分中國人所接受。

中國人休妻一般有七種理由，第一種就是不生男孩。對男孩的渴求，導致了納妾制度。也隨之產(chǎn)生了各種不幸。他們生男孩時就興高采烈、趾高氣揚；生了女孩，就神情沮喪、意氣消沉。大部分的溺嬰事件也與此有關(guān)，這種事南方比北方多。有時，人們甚至根本就不知道。想獲得這方面的信息極為困難，因為人們對此諱莫如深。中國的私生子也不少，但無論男孩女孩，人們都不希望把他們留在世上。即使不能直接證明各地溺殺女嬰的事件比實際上要少，但從道理上肯定活埋三歲小孩以便養(yǎng)活其祖母的行為，無論如何都不能逃脫殺人的罪責，即使是不受歡迎的女孩。

中國人守孝的觀念，上文已作了闡述，原來要求應滿三年，可實際上已縮短為二十七個月。在《論語》第一十七章，夫子的一個門徒就堅決反對守孝三年，堅持說一年就足夠了。對此，夫子最后說，在三年守孝期間，君子不能行樂，但如果你把它縮短為一年，只要行樂時能心安，就行樂好了。可是，夫子明確評價他“不仁”。

守孝比一切社會職責都重要，作兒子的，為政府服役時除外，一生要為此付出很多時間。也有一些特別的孝子，會在父親或母親的墳前搭個棚，整天住在哪兒。最平常的做法是夜晚住在哪兒，白天照常生活。也有一些人情守禮儀，完全沉浸在悲痛中，什么事也不做。筆者也認識這樣一個人，他對父母極盡孝道，在父母墳前守了很長時間，仍然心緒不寧，給全家?guī)砹艘粋€不必要的負擔。但中國人對此極為贊賞，完全不考慮后果。履行儀式是絕對的，其他任何事情都無關(guān)緊要。

好多人為了給父親或母親置辦體面的葬禮，賣掉了最后一塊田，甚至扒屋賣棒。這種行為是一種社會性的錯誤，但又很不容易讓中國人明白。它符合中國人的天性，也符合禮，所以，他們覺得必須去做。

中國人極重視禮儀和孝行，胡克神父依據(jù)自己的親自經(jīng)歷，為我們提供了一個精彩的例子，那時，他來到中國，尚不足一年，住在南方某地。他雇用了一位家在北京的教師，教師家中有一位老母親，母子已四年未通音信。有一次，神父要派一個信差到北京去，考慮到這是一次難得的機會，就讓教師也寫封信回家，聽說信差馬上要走，這位教師就從隔壁教室叫了一個學生，對他說：“過來，拿著紙，替我給我母親寫封信，別耽誤時間，信差馬上要走了。”胡克先生十分驚訝，就問那孩子是不是認識老師的母親，結(jié)果是他根本就不知道還有這樣一個人，“你沒告訴過他，他知道寫些什么呢？”老師不以為然地說：“他不知道該寫些什么？他學作文已有一年多了，掌握了不少文雅的辭令，你認為，他不清楚兒子該怎樣給母親寫信嗎？”孩子很快把信寫好了，而且還封了口，老師只是簽了名。這封信可以送給帝國的任何一位母親，她們收到信時，也都會同樣滿心歡喜。

由于孝行對孩子的影響不同，就導致了兩種情況。當然，兩種極端的例子在哪兒都能找到。殺死父母的現(xiàn)象并不多見，這種人一般都是瘋子，但對他的處罰與常人沒什么不同。普遍百姓，終日在窮困潦倒中痛苦地呻吟，父母對子女過分苛酷，有時在所難免，所以才會有這種事情發(fā)生。另一方面，主動代父接受死刑的事也時有發(fā)生，它有力地證明了孝心的真誠與力量。盡管做父親的可能罪該萬死。

西方基督教國家的家庭關(guān)系紐帶十分松弛，對剛從這種紐帶中解脫出來的西方人來說，中國的孝行的確有些吸引力。尊敬長者的品質(zhì)就對盎格魯一撒克遜民族特別有益。在西方，兒子長大后，想去哪兒就去哪兒，愿做什么就做什么。在中國人眼里，這有點像長大了的牛犢或驢駒，因為只有動物才不受禮的約束。站在中國人的立場思考一些問題，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們還有許多社會行為需要改進，我們大多數(shù)人就像生活在玻璃房子中一樣，確實應該小心謹慎，不能亂扔石子。不過，不重點強調(diào)一下孝順的幾個致命缺陷，一切討論都將徒勞無功。

中國人的孝順觀念有五大缺陷，兩個已經(jīng)討論過了，還有三個未討論。第一是它對作兒女的，列舉了一大堆義務，可是對父母的義務，卻只字不提。在中國，提這類建議是多余的。而在世界其他各地，它一直都是必不可少的。神啟的智慧曾引導使徒保羅，使他以精煉的語言道出了理想家庭的四大支柱：“你們作丈夫的，要愛你們的妻子，不可苦待她們。”“你們作妻子的，當順從你們的丈夫，這在主里面是相宜的。”“你們作女兒的，要凡事聽從父母，因為這是主所喜悅的。”“你們作父親的，不要惹兒女的氣，恐怕他們失了志氣。”孔子道德思想中的那些世俗的智慧怎么能與這些意義深遠的準則相比呢？所有的教義都不為女兒說話，全都為了兒子。在這方面，多少世紀以來，如果中國人不是色盲的話，怎么會沒發(fā)現(xiàn)這是對人性的嚴重摧殘呢？生為男身，就被家里奉為至寶，生為女身，則成了家中可怕的累贅，就算不一定被溺死，也一定會終生飽受歧視。

中國人認為，妻子是卑賤的。孔子沒有說過丈夫應該對妻子如何，或妻子應該怎樣對待丈夫。儒教只是要求男人應該依從父母，同時也強迫妻子這樣做。妻子與父母產(chǎn)生矛盾時，因為妻子次要、卑賤，她就應該讓步、屈服。中國家長制的社會結(jié)構(gòu)存在著嚴重的弊病。它壓抑人的某些天性，但又將另一些天性訓化至極端；它使整個社會成了老年人的社會，青年一代則倍受壓抑，處在從屬地位。鋼鐵般的壓力禁錮了人的思想，阻礙了社會的發(fā)展利有益的變革。

孝道中傳種接代的宗旨是一系列弊病的根源。它要求，無論有沒有養(yǎng)活孩子的條件，都必須生養(yǎng)。它導致了早婚與人口泛濫，使人們倍受貧困的煎熬。它也是一夫多妻制和納妾制的根源，它永遠是一個禍根。祖先崇拜真正是中華民族宗教信仰的集中體現(xiàn)。如果正確地理解的話，它是一個民族被迫套上的最沉重的苦軛。正如那茨博士在上面的那篇論文中指出的：令人惱火的是，數(shù)億中國人都受無數(shù)死人的支配，“活著的一代受過去無數(shù)代人的控制。”對于令人窒息的保守主義來說，祖先崇拜是最好的形式與保證。如果保守主義不受到道德上的打擊，在本世紀的最后十五年，中國如何能夠使自己完全適應新的形勢呢？如果中國人繼續(xù)把過去的死人當做真正的神靈，他們?nèi)绾文軌蛳蚯斑~出切實的一步呢？

我們認為，中國人的孝順完全是由恐懼和自私造成的，這二者是左右人靈魂的最有力的因素。鬼魂因為具有制造災難的力量，故而受到崇拜。孔子有一句富有智慧的格言：“敬鬼神而遠之，可謂知矣。”忽略了供品，鬼魂就會發(fā)怒，接著就要報復。崇拜它們就是一種較保險的方式，這似乎就是各種崇拜死人觀念的核心。活人之間，推理也同樣簡單。兒子孝順老子，也要求自己的兒子盡孝，這就是養(yǎng)孩子的目的。“種樹遮蔭，養(yǎng)兒防老。”無論是老子，還是兒子，都很清楚這一點。“沒有尿床的孩子，就沒人墳前燒紙。”每一代都要償還上一代的養(yǎng)育債，也要求下一代最大限度地償還自己。因此，孝順的品行就年復一年、代復一代地傳了下來。

對于中國人過分夸張的孝順，有一種憂郁的觀點認為，中國人既沒有把崇拜對象具體化為上帝，也沒有能夠認識到上帝的存在。祖先崇拜是孝順最完美的，最終的表現(xiàn)形式，它純粹是由泛神論、不可知論和無神論構(gòu)成的。它把死人變成神，神也不過是死人而已。他們只對父母表示愛、感恩和畏懼，他們不知道天上的父，就是知道了，也毫無興趣。中國人要么接受基督教，要么放棄祖先崇拜，二者不能共存。在這二者生死斗爭中，適者生存。

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.