Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  In some cases the authorities knew only how to indulge in empty talk; in other cases the officials succeeding those who originated the reforms gradually became lax and let the projects drop. Generally the initial effort was seldom maintained to the end; and while there was much talk, there was little action. . . . If the proposals had been carried out gradually and persistently, China would have long ago become invincible. But these far-reaching plans failed because we only put up an ostentatious facade behind which were concealed the avarice and selfishness [of the officials]. [19b]

  In order to create a new impression in the country and to stimulate the lax morale of the people, it is necessary to distinguish between meritorious and unworthy men and to order rewards and punishments accordingly. . . . If this fundamental remedy is adopted, the raising of funds will bring in abundant revenues, and the training of troops will result in a strong army. Institutions that are good will achieve results day by day, while institutions that are not so good can be changed to bring out their maximum usefulness. Otherwise, profit-seeking opportunists will vie with each other in proposing novel theories . . . and there will be no limit to their evil doings. [20b–21a]

  As to the present institutions and laws, although in name they adhere to past formulations “respectfully observed,” in fact they have lost the essence of their original meaning. If we cling to the vestiges of the past, it will be conforming to externals while departing from the spirit. But if we get at the root, a single change can lead to complete fulfillment of the Way. . . . We should, therefore, make the necessary adjustments in accordance with the needs of the time. If we secure the right persons, all things can be transformed without a trace; but if we do not obtain the right persons, laws and institutions will only serve the nefarious designs of the wicked. [21a–22a]

  [Jianzheng tang zhegao 2: 18a–22a—CT]

  ZHU YIXIN: FOURTH LETTER IN REPLY TO KANG YOUWEI

  Zhu Yixin (1846–1894), an official who withdrew from the government to teach and pursue classical studies, prided himself on his Confucian orthodoxy and made no compromises with Westernization. He opposed even the introduction of machines on the ground that, though useful in countries with vast resources and a shortage of manpower, they would only create unemployment in China and thus drive people to desperation and violence.

  Zhu correctly discerned that the effect of Kang’s ideas (as expressed in Confucius As a Reformer) would be not only to change the outward forms of Chinese life but ultimately to undermine traditional Confucian morality itself. The “way” of the West could not be adopted piecemeal: its values and institutions were inseparably related, as were those of China. On the other hand, it was both impossible and undesirable for the Chinese to surrender their own Way—the basis of their whole civilization—for that of the West. The only solution was a return to fixed principles, rejecting expediency and utilitarianism. It is significant, however, that Zhu’s appeal is to the leadership class, who should set a good example for the people as a whole. If even a few superior men adhere to principle, the masses will follow.

  Since ancient times there have been no institutions that might not develop defects. When a true king arises, he makes small changes if the defects are small and great changes if the defects are great. . . . Thus Confucius said, “Let there be the [right] men and the government will flourish; but without the [right] men, the government will decay and cease.”5 The defects of a government are due to the failings of those who manage the institutions rather than of those who establish them. Now by referring to Confucius as a reformer, your real intention is to facilitate the introduction of new institutions. The accounts of Confucius as a reformer come from apocryphal texts and cannot be wholly believed. But even if the sage has spoken thus, he was only taking a simple pattern and elaborating upon it in order to return to the ancient institutions of the Three Dynasties and sage kings. How could he have intended to use “barbarian ways to reform China”? [1: 11a]

  I have heard of “daily renovating one’s virtue,”6 but I have never heard of daily renovating one’s moral principles. The scholars of the Qianlong [17361795] and Jiaqing [1796–1820] periods regarded moral principle as something one should not talk about.7 Now, in order to rescue us from the degeneration and loss [that resulted] you do not seek a return to fixed principles, but instead, you talk about changing principles. The barbarians do not recognize the moral obligations between ruler and minister, parent and child, elder brother and younger brother, husband and wife. There is your change in principles. Do you mean that the classics of our sages and the teachings of our philosophers are too dull and banal to follow, and that we must change them so as to have something new? Only if we first have principles can we then have institutions. Barbarian institutions are based on barbarian principles. Different principles make for different customs, and different customs give rise to different institutions. Now, instead of getting at the root of it all, you talk blithely of changing institutions. If the institutions are to be changed, are not the principles going to be changed along with them?

  The manufacture of instruments by the workers involves techniques, not principles. As the minds of the people become more and more artful, clever contrivances will daily increase. Once started, there is no resistance to it. Why, therefore, need we fear that our techniques will not become sufficiently refined?

  Now, because our techniques have not yet attained the highest level of skillfulness, it is proposed that we should seek to achieve this by changing our institutions as well as our principles. . . . Is this not like rescuing a person from being drowned by pushing him into a deep abyss? Is this not going much too far?

  Men’s minds are corrupted by utilitarianism. Those who run the institutions will utilize them for self-interest. One institution established only means one more evil added. Consequently, the path to good government is, above all, the rectification of the people’s minds-and-hearts, and the establishment of virtuous customs. The perfecting of institutions should come next.

  Moreover, our institutions are by themselves clear and complete, and it is not necessary to borrow from foreign customs. How can we blame later mistakes on our ancestors and let the theory of utilitarianism be our guide?

  Of course, the pitiably stupid people who only follow shadows and listen to echoes cannot be made to understand this. But even a few well-intentioned scholars, going to extremes and believing that the Classics of Odes, Documents, Rites, and Music, which have been handed down to us by the sages, are not adequate to meet the changing circumstances, take to what is strange and novel and maintain that therein lies the path to wealth and power. But does the reason for the foreigners’ being rich and powerful lie in this? Or does it not lie in their having a way that is the source and basis [of their institutions]? And is it not true that a way that is basic and original with them can never be practiced in China, and furthermore that it should absolutely not be practiced by our descendants? [12b–13a]

  Mencius said, “The noble man seeks simply to bring back the unchanging standard, and that being rectified, the masses are roused to virtue. When they are so roused, forthwith perversities and wickedness disappear.”8 A review of our history since ancient times will show that herein lies the key to order and disorder. [13b]

  [Su Yu, ed., Yijiao congbian 1: 11a–13b—CT]

  YE DEHUI: THE SUPERIORITY OF CHINA AND CONFUCIANISM

  In his criticism of the reformers in the late 1890s, Ye Dehui (1864–1927) attempted to defend not only Confucian ethical ideals but existing institutions. While acknowledging that the West had its points of excellence, worthy of selective emulation, for him they were few indeed compared to what China had to offer. Instead, therefore, of claiming for her simply moral superiority over the West, and thus seeming to retreat from vulnerable institutions into an unimpeachable tradition, Ye tended to justify the whole existing order—the monarchy, rule by an elite, the civil service examination system, and so on—against democracy and Westernization. Government by the masses wi
ll lead to chaos. With regard to institutions, however, he claimed no more than China’s right to keep her own because they were peculiarly suited to her, while in regard to Confucianism he did not hesitate to proclaim its universality and ultimate adoption by the West.

  Conservatism of this type, which sanctified the status quo and identified Confucianism so closely with it, helped convince Chinese of the next generation that to overthrow the old dynastic order required the destruction of Confucianism too.

  Of all countries in the five continents China is the most populous. It is situated in the north temperate zone, with a mild climate and abundant natural resources. Moreover, it became civilized earlier than all other nations, and its culture leads the world. The boundary between China and foreign countries, between Chinese and barbarians, admits of no argument and cannot be discussed in terms of their strength or our weakness.

  Of the four classes of people, the scholars are the finest. From the beginning of the present dynasty until today there have been numerous great ministers and scholars who rose to eminence on the basis of their examination essays and poems. Although special examinations have been given and other channels of recruitment have been opened, it is mostly from the regular civil service examinations that men of abilities have risen up. The Western system of election has many defects. Under that system it is difficult to prevent favoritism and to uphold integrity. At any rate, each nation has its own governmental system, and one should not compel uniformity among them. [4: 78b–79a]

  An examination of the causes of success and failure in government reveals that in general the upholding of Confucianism leads to good government while the adoption of foreignism leads to disorder. If one keeps to kingly rule [relying on virtue], there will be order; if one follows the way of the overlord [relying on power], there will be disorder. . . .

  Since the abdication of Yao and Shun, the ruling of China under one family has become institutionalized. Because of China’s vast territory and tremendous resources, even when it has been ruled under one monarch, still there have been more days of disorder than days of order. Now, if it is governed by the people, there will be different policies from many groups, and strife and contention will arise. [4: 12a–13a]

  [Mencius said,] “The people are the most important element in a nation,”9 not because the people consider themselves important but because the sovereign regards them as important. And it is not people’s rights that are important. Since the founding of the Qing dynasty our revered rulers have loved the people as their own children. Whenever the nation has suffered from a calamity such as famine, flood, and war, the emperor has immediately given generous relief upon its being reported by the provincial officials. For instance, even though the treasury was short of funds recently, the government did not raise any money from the people except for the likin10 tax. Sometimes new financial devices are proposed by ministers who like to discuss pecuniary matters, but even if they are approved and carried out by order of the department concerned, they are suspended as soon as it is learned that they are troubling the people. How vastly different is this from the practice of Western countries where taxes are levied in all places, on all persons, for all things and at all times? [4: 31a]

  Confucianism represents the supreme expression of justice in the principles of Heaven and the hearts of men. In the future it will undoubtedly be adopted by civilized countries of both East and West. The essence of Confucianism will shine brightly as it renews itself from day to day.

  Ethics is common to China and the West. The concept of blood relations and respect for parents prevails also among barbarians. To love life and hate killing is rooted in the human heart. The Confucian ideal is expressed in the Spring and Autumn Annals, which aims at saving the world from disorder and treason; proper conduct is defined in the Classic of Filial Piety, which lays down the moral principles and obligations for all generations to come. And there is the Analects, which synthesizes the great laws of the ancient kings. Zengzi, Zixia, Mencius, and others who transmitted the teaching all mastered the Six Arts and knew thoroughly the myriad changes of circumstances. All that the human heart desires to say was said several thousand years ago. [3: 31a]

  Chinese scholars who attack Western religion err in false accusation, while those who admire it err in flattery. Indeed, only a superficial Confucian would say that Westerners had no moral principles, and yet only fools would say that Western religion excels Confucianism. Insofar as there is morality, there must be Confucianism. [3: 33b]

  [Su Yu, ed., Yijiao congbian 3: 32b–33a, Ming jiao; 4: 12a–13a, Youxian jinyu; 31a, Zheng jie pian; 78b–79a, Fei youxue tongyi—CT]

  TAN SITONG

  Tan Sitong (1865–1898) is one of the most striking figures of the reform movement. The nonconformist son of a high official, he loved both independent study and the active life—now delving in books and writing poetry, now practicing swordsmanship, serving as a military officer in the Far West, or traveling about as he pleased in search of historic sites and boon companions. He was disinclined toward an official career and might never have sought office had he not, from his unorthodox studies (embracing Christianity and Buddhism as well as Confucianism and Daoism), developed a passionate interest in the Western world and the modernization of China. Active leadership in the reform movement and study under Kang Youwei led eventually to participation at court in the Hundred Days of Reform. With its failure, he died a “martyr” at the age of thirty-three, risking death in hopes of rescuing the young Guangxu emperor from his enemies.

  Not only his martyrdom but also his extreme idealism made Tan a far greater hero to the new generation of Chinese than his master, Kang, was. Accepting many of Kang’s basic ideas, he became an immediate and outspoken champion of some that Kang regarded only as future possibilities. He openly advocated republicanism instead of the monarchical system that Kang would have retained and merely reformed. Here Tan cited Huang Zongxi (as did other reformers and revolutionaries of the time) as native authority for his anti-dynastic views. As against loyalty to the Manchus he proclaimed Chinese nationalism, pointing in this case to Wang Fuzhi as its exemplar in the past. Tan also attacked directly and unqualifiedly the traditional Confucian virtues based on specific human relationships, which Zhang Zhidong had upheld as the essence of Confucianism and the Chinese way of life. It was these ideas—republicanism, nationalism, and opposition to the Chinese family system—that anticipated main trends in the early twentieth century.

  THE STUDY OF HUMANITY

  Tan’s chief work, The Study of Humanity (Renxue, 1898), might more accurately be called On Humanitarianism. It offers an eclectic philosophy with elements drawn ostensibly from Confucianism, Buddhism, and Christianity. The central conception of ren differs little from that of Kang: a generalized feeling of goodwill toward men, which suggests most the “liberty, equality, and fraternity” of the French Revolution, somewhat less Christian “charity” and Buddhist “compassion,” and perhaps least of all, the Confucian virtue of “humaneness” (ren). Though akin, in certain respects, to the Neo-Confucian concept of ren as a cosmic empathy that unites man to Heaven and earth, its ethical character is radically altered by Tan’s repudiation of the obligations of human relationship,11 the relationships between ruler and minister, parent and child, husband and wife, elder brother and younger brother, and friends, which in the past had given practical significance to ren for Confucians and Neo-Confucians alike. Indeed, the “Confucius” of Tan Sitong bears little resemblance to the Confucius of the Analects but freely represents the sage in the image of a modern radical reformer.

  When Confucius first set forth his teachings, he discarded the ancient learning, reformed existing institutions, rejected monarchism, advocated republicanism, and transformed inequality into equality. He indeed applied himself to many changes. Unfortunately, the scholars who followed Xunzi forgot entirely the true meaning of Confucius’s teaching but clung to its superficial form. They allowed the ruler supreme, unlimited powers and e
nabled him to make use of Confucianism in controlling the country. The school of Xunzi insisted that duties based on human relationships were the essence of Confucianism, not knowing that this was a system applicable only to the Age of Disorder. Even for the Age of Disorder, any discussion of the human relationships without reference to Heaven would be prejudicial and incomplete, and the evil consequences would be immeasurable. How much worse, then, for them recklessly to have added the Three Bonds (Mainstays),12 thus openly creating a system of inequality with its unnatural distinctions between high and low and making men, the children of Heaven and earth, suffer a miserable life. . . .

  For the past two thousand years the ruler-minister relationship has been especially dark and inhuman, and it has become worse in recent times. The ruler is not physically different or intellectually superior to man: on what does he rely to oppress 400 million people? He relies on the formulation long ago of the Three Bonds and Five Moral Relations, so that, controlling men’s bodies, he can also control their minds. As Zhuangzi said, “He who steals a belt buckle pays with his life; he who steals a state gets to be a feudal lord.”13 When Tian Chengzi stole the state of Qi, he also stole the [Confucian] system of humaneness, rightness, and sage wisdom. When the thieves were Chinese and Confucians, it was bad enough; but how could we have allowed the unworthy tribes of Mongolia and Manchuria, who knew nothing of China or Confucianism, to steal China by means of their barbarism and brutality! After stealing China, they controlled the Chinese by means of the system they had stolen, and they shamelessly made use of Confucianism, with which they had been unfamiliar, to oppress China, to which they had been strangers. But China worshiped them as Heaven and did not realize their guilt. Instead of burning the books in order to keep the people ignorant [as did the Qin], they more cleverly used the books to keep the people under control. Compared with them, the tyrannical emperor of the Qin dynasty was but a fool! [A: 37a–38a]