infused a new life into the study of Chinese literature, and especially
thrown on the whole subject a much greater degree of clearness than
originally belonged to it, has, in his examination of this first very
meagre outline of the infant civilization of China, wherein he discovers
the then very contracted circle of Chinese ideas, passed many
intellectual observations, and drawn many historical deductions. And if,
as he conjectures, the discovery of Chinese writing must date its origin
from four thousand years back, this would bring it within three or four
generations from the Deluge, according to the vulgar era--an estimate
which certainly is not exaggerated. If this European scholar, intimately
conversant as he is with Chinese antiquities and science, is at a loss
adequately to describe his astonishment at the extreme poverty of these
first symbols of Chinese writing, so no one, doubtless, possesses in a
higher degree than himself all the necessary attainments to enable him
to appreciate the immeasurable distance between this first extreme
jejuneness of ideas and the boundless wealth displayed in the later,
artificial and complex writing of the Chinese.
But when, among other things, he calls our attention to the fact that,
in this primitive writing, even the sign or symbol of a priest is
wanting,--a symbol which together with the class itself must exist among
the very rudest nations--I cannot concur in the truth of the remark; for
he himself adduces, among other characters, one which must represent a
magician. Now among the heathen nations of the primitive age, the one
personage was certainly identical with the other, as even among the
Cainites was very probably the case. Even the combination of several of
those simple characters, which generally serves to denote the more
abstract ideas, seems often, or at least originally not to have been
regulated by any profound principle of symbolism, but to have arisen
merely out of the vulgar perceptions or impressions of every-day life.
For instance, the character denoting happiness is composed of two signs,
of which one represents an open mouth, and the other a hand full of
rice, or rice by itself. Here we see no allusion is made to any very
lofty or chimerical idea of happiness, or to any mystic or spiritual
conception of the same subject; but, as this written-character well
evinces, the Chinese notion of happiness is simply represented by a
mouth filled and saturated with good rice. Another example of nearly the
same kind is given by Remusat with something of shyness and
reserve;--the character designating woman, when doubled, signifies
strife and contention, and when tripled, immoral and disorderly conduct.
How widely removed are all these coarse and trivial combinations of
ideas from an exquisite sense--a deep symbolism of Nature--from those
spiritual emblems in the Egyptian hieroglyphics, so far as they have
been deciphered; although these emblems may have been, and were in fact
applied to the purpose of alphabetic usage. In the hieroglyphics there
is, beside the bare literal meaning, a high symbolical inspiration, like
a soul of life--like the breathing of a high in-dwelling spirit,--a
deeply felt significancy--a lofty and beautiful design apparent through
the dead character denoting any particular name or fact.[44]
But independently of this boundless chaos of written-characters, the
Chinese undoubtedly possess a system of scientific symbols, and
symbolical signs, which constitute the purport of the most ancient of
their sacred books--the I--King--which signifies the book of unity, or,
as others explain it, the book of changes; and either name will agree
with the meaning of those symbols which, when rightly understood, and
conceived in the spirit of early antiquity, will appear to be of a very
remarkable and scientific nature. There are only two primary figures or
lines, from which proceed originally the four symbols and the eight koua
or combinations representing nature, which form the basis of the high
Chinese philosophy. These first two primary principles are a straight,
unbroken line, and a line broken or divided into two. If these first
simple elements are doubled: namely--two straight lines put under each
other like our arithmetical sign of equation, and two broken or divided
lines also put together, the different lines are formed. According as
one broken line occupies the upper or the lower place, there are two
possible variations--when put together, there are four possible
variations; and these constitute the four symbols. But if three lines of
these two kinds, the straight and the broken, are united or placed under
each other, so, according to the number or the upper, middle or lower
place of either species of line, there are eight possible combinations,
and these are the eight koua, which, together with the four symbols,
refer to the natural elements, and to the primary principles of all
things, and serve as the symbolical expression, or scientific
designation, of these.
What is now the real sense and the proper signification of those
scientific primary lines among the Chinese, which exert an influence
over the whole of their ancient literature, and upon which they
themselves have written an incredible number of learned commentaries?
Leibnitz supposed them to contain a reference to the modern algebraical
discoveries, and especially to the binary calculation. Other writers,
especially among the English, drawing their observations more from real
life, remark on the other hand, that this ancient system of mystical
lines serves at present the purpose of a sort of oracular play of
questions, like the turning up of cards among Europeans, and is
converted to many superstitious uses, especially for making pretended
discoveries in alchymy, to which the Chinese are very much addicted. But
this is only an abuse of modern times, which no longer understand this
primitive system of symbolical signs and lines. The high antiquity of
these lines and of the eight koua can be the less a matter of doubt as
even mythology has ascribed them to the primitive Patriarch of the
Chinese--Fohi, who is represented as having espied these lines on the
back of a tortoise, and having thence deduced the written characters;
which many of the learned Chinese wish to derive from these eight koua
or combinations of the first symbolical lines. But the French scholar,
whom I have more than once had occasion to name, and who is well able to
form a competent opinion on the subject, is most decidedly opposed to
this Chinese derivation of all the written characters from the eight
koua; and it would appear, indeed, that the latter differ totally from
the common system of Chinese writing, and must be looked upon as of a
distinct scientific nature.
Perhaps we may find a natural explanation of the true, and not very
hidden sense of these signs, by comparing the fundamental doctrines in
the elder Greek philosophy and science of nature. Thus, in the writings
of Plato, mention is often made of the one and of the other, or of unity
and duality, as the original elements of nature and first principles of
all existence. By this is meant the doctrine of the first opposition and
of the many oppositions derived from the first; and also of the
possible, and conceivable, or required adjustment and compromise between
the two, and of the restoration of the first unity and eternal equality
anterior to all opposition, and which terminates and absorbs in itself
all discord. Thus these eight koua, and mathematical signs or symbolical
lines of ancient China, would comprise nothing more than a dry outline
of all dynamical speculation and science. And it is therefore quite
consistent that the old sacred book which contains these principles of
Chinese science should be termed either the book of unity, or the book
of changes; for doubtless this title refers to the doctrine of an
absolute unity, as the fundamental principle of all things, and to the
doctrine of differences, or oppositions or changes springing out of that
first unity. This doctrine of an opposition in all things, in thought as
in nature--will become more apparent if we reflect on the new and
brilliant discoveries in natural philosophy. For as in this science, the
oxygen and hydrogen parts in the chemistry of metals, or the positive
and negative end of electrical phenomena, in the attracting and
repelling pole of magnetism, reveal such an opposition and dynamic play
of living powers in nature; so in this philosophy of China, the abstract
doctrine of this opposition and dynamical change of existence seems to
be laid down with a sort of mathematical generality, as the basis of all
future science. In our higher natural philosophy, indeed, all this has
been proved from facts and experience; and, besides, this dynamic life
forms but the one element, and the one branch of the science to be
acquired; and a philosophy founded entirely on this dynamical law of
existence, without any regard to the other and higher principle of
internal experience and moral life, intellectual intuition and divine
revelation, would be at best a very partial system, and by no means of
general application; or if a general application of such a system were
made, it must lead to endless mistakes, errors and contradictions. That
such a system of dynamical speculation and science, if extended to
objects where it cannot be corroborated by facts--to all things divine
and human, real, possible, or impossible, will undoubtedly lead to such
a chaotic confusion of ideas; we have had a memorable experience in the
German "Philosophy of Nature" of the last generation;[45] a philosophy
which consisted in a fanciful play of thought with _Polarities, and
oppositions, and points of indifference between them_, but which has
been long appreciated in its true worth and real nature, and consigned
to its proper limits.
Thus this outline of the old Chinese symbols of thought, which have a
purely metaphysical import, would lay before us the most recent error
clothed in the most antique form--but the Chinese system is in itself
very remarkable and important. The fundamental text of the old sacred
book on this doctrine of unity and oppositions, and which may now be
easily comprehended, runs thus, according to Remusat's literal
translation: "The great first Principle has engendered or produced two
equations and differences, or primary rules of existence; but the two
primary rules or two oppositions, namely Yn and Yang, or repose and
motion (the affirmative and negative as we might otherwise call them)
have produced four signs or symbols; and the four symbols have produced
the eight koua, or further combinations." These eight koua are kien or
ether, kui or pure water, li or pure fire, tchin or thunder, siun, the
wind, kan, common water, ken, a mountain, and kuen, the earth.
On this ancient basis of Chinese philosophy, proceeding from
indifference to differences, was afterwards founded the rationalist
system of Lao-tseu, whose name occurs somewhat earlier than that of
Confucius. The Taosse, or disciples of Reason, as the followers of this
philosopher entitle themselves, have very much degenerated, and have
become a complete atheistical sect; though the guilt of this must be
attributed, not to the founder, but to his disciples only. It is however
acknowledged that the atheistical principles of this dead science of
reason, have been very widely diffused throughout the Chinese empire,
and for a certain period were almost generally prevalent.
As it is necessary to keep in view a certain chronological order, in our
investigations of the progressive development of Chinese intellect, I
may here observe that, as far as European research has been able to
ascertain, we may distinguish three principal and successive epochs in
the history both of the religion and science of China. The first epoch
is that of sacred tradition, and of the old constitution of the Chinese
empire, and discloses those primitive views, and that primitive system
of ethics, on which the empire was founded. The second, which we may fix
about six centuries before our era, is the period of scientific
philosophy, that pursued two opposite paths of enquiry. Confucius
applied his attention entirely to the more practical study of ethics,
with which, indeed, the old constitution, history and sacred traditions
of the Chinese were very intimately connected; and the pure morality of
Confucius which was the first branch of Chinese philosophy known in
Europe, excited to a high degree the enthusiasm of many European
scholars, who, by their too exclusive admiration, were prevented from
forming a right estimate of the general character of Chinese philosophy.
Another system of philosophy, purely speculative and widely different
from the practical and ethical doctrine of Confucius, was the system of
Lao-tseu and his school, whence issued the above-mentioned rationalist
sect of Taosse that has at last fallen into atheism. As to the question
whether Lao-tseu travelled into the remote West, or in case he came only
as far as Western Asia, whether he derived his system from the Persian
or Egyptian doctrines or mediately from the Greek philosophy--this
question I shall not here stop to discuss; for the matter is very
doubtful in itself, and, were it even proved, still all the doctrines
borrowed from the West were invested in a form purely Chinese, and
clothed in quite a native garb. Those signs in the I--King, we have
already spoken of, evidently comprise the germ of such an absolute,
negative, and consequently atheistic rationalism--a mechanical play of
idle abstractions. The third epoch in the progress of Chinese opinions
is formed by the introduction of the Indian religion of Buddha or of Fo.
The great revolution which had previously occurred in the old doctrines
and manners of China; and the ruling spirit of that false and absolute
rationalism, had already paved the way for the foreign religion of
Buddha, which, of all the Pagan imitations of truth, occupies the lowest
grade.
The old sacred traditions of the Chinese are not so overlaid, nor
disfigured with fictions, as those of most other Asiatic nations; those
of the Indians, for example, and of the early nations of Pagan Europe;
but their traditions breathe the purer spirit of genuine history. Hence
the poetry of the Chinese is not mythological, like that of other
nations; but is either lyrical, (as in the Shi--King, a book of sacred
songs, composed or compiled by Confucius); or is entirely confined to
the representation of real life, and of the social relations (as in the
modern tales and novels, several of which have been translated into the
European languages).
The old traditions of the Chinese have many traits of a kindred
character with, or at least of a strong resemblance to, the Mosaic
revelation, and even to the sacred traditions of the nations of Western
Asia, particularly the Persians; and in these traditions we find much
that either corroborates the testimony of Holy Writ, or at least affords
matter for further comparison. We have before mentioned the very
peculiar manner in which the Chinese speak of the great Flood, and how
their first progenitors struggled against the savage waters, and how
this task was afterwards neglected by bad or improvident rulers, who in
consequence of this neglect were brought to ruin.
I will cite but one instance, where the parallel is indeed remarkable.
In the I--King mention is made of the fallen dragon, or of the spirit of
the dragon that, for his presumption in wishing to ascend to heaven, was
precipitated into the abyss; and the words in which this event is
described are precisely the same, or at least very similar to those
which our Scriptures apply to the rebel angel, and the Persian books to
Ahriman. However this dragon is whimsically, we might almost say,
artlessly, made the sacred symbol of the Chinese empire and Emperor. The
paternal power of the latter is understood in a much too absolute sense:
not only is the Emperor styled the lord of heaven and earth, and even
the son of God; but his will it revered as the will of God, or rather
completely identified with it; and even the most determined eulogists of
the Chinese constitution and manners cannot deny that the monarch is
almost the object of a real worship. Christianity teaches that all power
is from God; but it does not thereby declare that all power is one and
the same with God. Even a dominion over nature and her powers is
ascribed to the Emperor of China, as the illustrious lord of heaven and
earth.
Moreover, no hereditary nobility, no classes separated by distinctions
of birth, exist in this country, as in India. The Emperor, half
identified with the Deity, had alone the privilege in ancient times of
offering on the sacred heights the great sacrifice to God. Some European
writers have, from this circumstance, conceived the Chinese constitution
to be theocratic; but if it be so, it is only in its outward form, or
original mould; for it would be difficult to shew in it any trace of a
true, vital theocracy. All that pomp of sacred ceremony and religious
titles, so strangely abused, forms a striking contrast with real
history, and with that long succession of profligate and unfortunate
reigns and perpetual revolutions which fill most of the pages of the
Chinese annals. We should err greatly were we to regard all these high
imperial titles as the mere swell and exaggeration of Eastern
phraseology. The Chinese speak of their celestial Empire of the Medium,
as they call their country, in terms which no European writer would
apply to a Christian state, and such indeed as the Scriptures and
religious authors use in reference only to the kingdom of God. They
cannot conceive it possible for the earth to contain two emperors at one
and the same time, and own the sway of more than one such absolute lord
and master. Hence they look on every solemn foreign embassy as a debt of
homage; nor is this sentiment the idle effect of vanity, or fancy--it is
a firm and settled belief, perfectly coinciding with the whole system of
their religious and political doctrines. This political idolatry of the
state, which the Chinese identify with the emperor's person, is a pagan
error: all excess, all exaggeration is sure to produce opposition and
re-action, or a tendency thereto. Hence the pages of Chinese history
present by the side of this high boasted ideal of absolute power, as a
fearful concomitant, and fitting commentary, one continuous series of
political revolutions and catastrophes. Neither the pure morality of
those ancient books revered by the Chinese as sacred, whatever be the
morality of books in which the principle of rationalism is so
exclusively predominant; nor all the high refinement of philosophic
speculation in the scientific period of their history, have prevented
this people from falling into the grossest of idolatries, and adopting a
foreign superstition, which of all false religions is unquestionably the
most reprehensible. Some persons have sought to trace a certain
resemblance to Christianity in this religion of Fo, partly on account of
some external institutions, and partly on account of the fundamental
principle of the incarnation, equally perverted and misapplied in this
superstition, as in the rival mythology of Brahma. The enemies of
Christianity, since the time of Voltaire, have not failed, at the name
of Bonzis, to throw out many malicious epigrams against religion. The
similarity here observed is not real, but is that caricature resemblance
the ape bears to man, and which has led many naturalists into error; for
the ape has with man no real affinity, no true internal sympathy in his
organic conformation, but merely the likeness of a spiteful parody, such
as we may suppose an evil spirit to have devised to mock the image of
God--the masterpiece of creation; and indeed the frailties and
corruption of degenerate man may well give occasion to such a parody. We
may lay it down as a general principle that the greater the apparent
resemblance which a false religion, utterly and fundamentally different
in its spiritual character, and moral tendency, externally bears to the
true, the more reprehensible will it be in itself, and the greater its
hostility to the truth. An example near at hand will place the truth of
this remark in the clearest light. If, for instance, Mahomet, instead of
merely giving himself out as a prophet, had declared he was the son of
God, the eternal Word, the incarnate Deity, the true and real Christ,
his religious system would certainly have been far more adverse and
repulsive to our feelings than it now is, and would have shocked alike
every mind trained in the intellectual discipline of Europe, brought up
with Christian feelings, and even unconsciously imbued with such. But
this is precisely the characteristic feature, the peculiar doctrine of
the religion of Buddha; for not only is Buddha himself worshipped as an
incarnate divinity, but this prerogative of a divine incarnation has
been transmitted to his chief priests through every generation; and thus
this personal idolatry has ever been kept alive. In regard to morals,
too, a comparison between the religion of the Buddhists and of the
Mahometans would be equally disadvantageous to the former. The injurious
influence which polygamy, and that degradation of the female sex it
necessarily involves, exert on the manners and intellectual character of
Mahometan nations, has been often observed, and can never be questioned.
But that that other and opposite abuse of marriage, poly-andry, which is
legally established among the Buddhist nations, is infinitely more
repugnant to, and destructive of morality, and more debasing to the male
character, must be perceptible to the feelings of every individual, and
can require no comment. I do not find, indeed, in the different accounts
of China, any mention made of this abominable practice; and it is very
possible that in this, as in other cases, the good old customs of the
Chinese have had the ascendancy, and preserved their beneficial
influence: but in Thibet, the chief seat of Buddhism, in many parts of
India, and in other countries where this religion prevails, the
unnatural custom exists.
The writer[46] best versed in the language and writings of the Buddhist
Monguls boasts of their superior humanity and mildness of manners, when
compared with the Mahometan nations; but this observation must be taken
only in a relative sense, and understood of a mere outward polish, and
superficial refinement of manner; for history does not show the Monguls
to have been at all more humane in their conduct. The indescribable
confusion in the mythological system of the Buddhists, their innumerable
books of metaphysics, all wearisomely prolix and unintelligible,
according to the explicit avowal of the critic just now cited, M.
Remusat, prove the essentially false direction of speculation and
philosophy among the Buddhists--a philosophy which, by a dialectic or
rather ideal course, has been led into a chaos of void abstractions, and
a pure nihilism; and more scientific observers have ever judged it to be
an absolute system of atheism.
It would appear that the Nestorians, or other degenerate Christian
sects, have exerted some influence on Buddhism, and co-operated in its
further development;--so we may well imagine that this exotic influence
has not tended to the amelioration or improvement of a religion false in
its essence, and fundamentally corrupt; but that its vices and
absurdities have remained equally flagrant, or, as it is easy to
suppose, have been aggravated in the progress of time.