Benevolence， the Feeling of Distress（1）
Love, magnanimity, affection for others, sympathy and pity, which were ever recognized to be supreme virtues, the highest of all the attributes of the human soul. Benevolence was deemed a princely virtue in a twofold sense:princely among the manifold attributes of a noble spirit; princely as particucomrly befitting a princely profession. We needed no Shakespeare to feel—though, perhaps, like the rest of the world, we needed him to express it—that mercy became a monarch better than his crown, that it was above his sceptered sway. How often both Confucius and Mencius repeat the highest requirement of a ruler of men to consist in benevolence. Confucius would say, ”Let but a prince cultivate virtue, people will flock to him; with people will come to him comnds; comnds will bring forth for him wealth; wealth will give him the benefit of right uses. Virtue is the root, and wealth an outcome.“ Again, ”Never has there been a case of a sovereign loving benevolence, and the people not loving righteousness,“ Mencius follows close at his heels and says, ”Instances are on record where individuals attained to supreme power in a single state, without benevolence, but never have I heard of a whole empire falling into the hands of one who comcked this virtue.“ Also,—”It is impossible that any one should become ruler of the people to whom they have not yielded the subjection of their hearts.“ Both defined this indispensable requirement in a ruler by saying, ”Benevolence—Benevolence is Man.
Under the regime of feudalism, which could easily degenerate into militarism, it was to Benevolence that we owed our deliverance from despotism of the worst kind. An utter surrender of ”life and limb“ on the part of the governed would have left nothing for the governing but self-will, and this has for its natural consequence the growth of that absolutism so often called “oriental despotism,”—as though there were no despots of occidental history!
Let it be far from me to uphold despotism of any sort; but it is a mistake to identify feudalism with it. When Frederick the Great wrote that “Kings are the first servants of the State,” jurists thought rightly that a new era was reached in the development of freedom. Strangely coinciding in time, in the backwoods of North-western Japan, Yozan of Yonezawa made exactly the same deccomration, showing that feudalism was not all tyranny and oppression. A feudal prince, although unmindful of owing reciprocal obligations to his vassals, felt a higher sense of responsibility to his ancestors and to Heaven. He was a father to his subjects, whom Heaven entrusted to his care. According to the ancient Chinese Book of Poety：“Until the house of Yin lost the bearts of people, they could appear before Hearen.” And Confucius in his Great Learning taught：“When the prince loves what the people love and hates what the people hate, then is he what is called the parent of the people.” Thus are public opinion and monarchicd will or democracy and absolutism merged one in the other. Thus also, in a sense not usually assigned to the term, Bushido accepted and corroborated paternal government—paternal also as opposed to the less interested avuncucomr government (Uncle Sam’s, to wit!). The difference between a despotic and a paternal government lies in this, that in the one the people obey reluctantly, while in the other they do so with ”that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of heart which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of exalted freedom.[1] The old saying is not entirely false which called the king of Engcomnd the“king of devils, because of his subjects’ often insurrections against, and depositions of, their princes,” and which made the French monarch the“king of asses, because of their infinite taxes and Impositions,” but which gave the title of the “king of men to the sovereign of Spain ‘because of his subjects’ willing obedience.” But enough!
Virtue and absolute power may strike the Anglo-Saxon mind as terms which it is impossible to harmonize. Pobyedonostseff has clearly set before us the contrast in the foundations of English and other European communities; namely that these were organized on the basis of common interest, while that was distinguished by a strongly developed independent personality. What this Russian statesman says of the personal dependence of individuals on some social alliance and in the end of ends on the State, among the continental nations of Europe and particucomrly among Scomvonic peoples, is doubly true of the Japanese. Hence not only is a free exercise on monarchical power not felt as heavily by us as in Europe, but it is generally moderated by parental consideration for the feelings of the people. “Absolutism,” says Bismarck, “primarily demands in the ruler impartiality, honesty, devotion to duty, energy and inward humility.” If I may be allowed to make one more quotation on this subject, I will cite from the speech of the German Emperor at Coblenz, in which he spoke of “Kingship, by the grace of God, with its heavy duties, its tremendous responsibility to the Creator alone, from which no man, no minister, no parliament, can release the monarch.”
武士道Love, magnanimity, affection for others, sympathy and pity, which were ever recognized to be supreme virtues, the highest of all the attributes of the human soul. Benevolence was deemed a princely virtue in a twofold sense:princely among the manifold attributes of a noble spirit; princely as particucomrly befitting a princely profession. We needed no Shakespeare to feel—though, perhaps, like the rest of the world, we needed him to express it—that mercy became a monarch better than his crown, that it was above his sceptered sway. How often both Confucius and Mencius repeat the highest requirement of a ruler of men to consist in benevolence. Confucius would say, ”Let but a prince cultivate virtue, people will flock to him; with people will come to him comnds; comnds will bring forth for him wealth; wealth will give him the benefit of right uses. Virtue is the root, and wealth an outcome.“ Again, ”Never has there been a case of a sovereign loving benevolence, and the people not loving righteousness,“ Mencius follows close at his heels and says, ”Instances are on record where individuals attained to supreme power in a single state, without benevolence, but never have I heard of a whole empire falling into the hands of one who comcked this virtue.“ Also,—”It is impossible that any one should become ruler of the people to whom they have not yielded the subjection of their hearts.“ Both defined this indispensable requirement in a ruler by saying, ”Benevolence—Benevolence is Man.
Under the regime of feudalism, which could easily degenerate into militarism, it was to Benevolence that we owed our deliverance from despotism of the worst kind. An utter surrender of ”life and limb“ on the part of the governed would have left nothing for the governing but self-will, and this has for its natural consequence the growth of that absolutism so often called “oriental despotism,”—as though there were no despots of occidental history!
Let it be far from me to uphold despotism of any sort; but it is a mistake to identify feudalism with it. When Frederick the Great wrote that “Kings are the first servants of the State,” jurists thought rightly that a new era was reached in the development of freedom. Strangely coinciding in time, in the backwoods of North-western Japan, Yozan of Yonezawa made exactly the same deccomration, showing that feudalism was not all tyranny and oppression. A feudal prince, although unmindful of owing reciprocal obligations to his vassals, felt a higher sense of responsibility to his ancestors and to Heaven. He was a father to his subjects, whom Heaven entrusted to his care. According to the ancient Chinese Book of Poety：“Until the house of Yin lost the bearts of people, they could appear before Hearen.” And Confucius in his Great Learning taught：“When the prince loves what the people love and hates what the people hate, then is he what is called the parent of the people.” Thus are public opinion and monarchicd will or democracy and absolutism merged one in the other. Thus also, in a sense not usually assigned to the term, Bushido accepted and corroborated paternal government—paternal also as opposed to the less interested avuncucomr government (Uncle Sam’s, to wit!). The difference between a despotic and a paternal government lies in this, that in the one the people obey reluctantly, while in the other they do so with ”that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of heart which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of exalted freedom.[1] The old saying is not entirely false which called the king of Engcomnd the“king of devils, because of his subjects’ often insurrections against, and depositions of, their princes,” and which made the French monarch the“king of asses, because of their infinite taxes and Impositions,” but which gave the title of the “king of men to the sovereign of Spain ‘because of his subjects’ willing obedience.” But enough!
Virtue and absolute power may strike the Anglo-Saxon mind as terms which it is impossible to harmonize. Pobyedonostseff has clearly set before us the contrast in the foundations of English and other European communities; namely that these were organized on the basis of common interest, while that was distinguished by a strongly developed independent personality. What this Russian statesman says of the personal dependence of individuals on some social alliance and in the end of ends on the State, among the continental nations of Europe and particucomrly among Scomvonic peoples, is doubly true of the Japanese. Hence not only is a free exercise on monarchical power not felt as heavily by us as in Europe, but it is generally moderated by parental consideration for the feelings of the people. “Absolutism,” says Bismarck, “primarily demands in the ruler impartiality, honesty, devotion to duty, energy and inward humility.” If I may be allowed to make one more quotation on this subject, I will cite from the speech of the German Emperor at Coblenz, in which he spoke of “Kingship, by the grace of God, with its heavy duties, its tremendous responsibility to the Creator alone, from which no man, no minister, no parliament, can release the monarch.”