talionis is here laid down in its fullest extent. The Chau Li tells
us of a provision made against the evil consequences of the
principle, by the appointment of a minister called 'The Reconciler
[2].' The provision is very inferior to the cities of refuge which
were set apart by Moses for the manslayer to flee to from the
fury of the avenger. Such as it was, however, it existed, and it is
remarkable that Confucius, when consulted on the subject, took
no notice of it, but affirmed the duty of blood-revenge in the
strongest and most unrestricted terms. His disciple Tsze-hsia
asked him, 'What course is to be pursued in the case of the murder
of a father or mother?' He replied, 'The son must sleep upon a
matting of grass, with his shield for his pillow; he must decline
to take office; he must not live under the same heaven with the
slayer. When he meets him in the marketplace or the court, he
must have his weapon ready to strike him.' 'And what is the
course on the murder of a brother?' 'The surviving brother must
not take office in the same State with the slayer; yet if he go on
his prince's service to the State where the slayer is, though he
meet him, he must not fight with him.' 'And what is the course on
the murder of an uncle or a cousin?' 'In this case the nephew or
cousin is not the principal. If the principal on whom the revenge
devolves can take it, he has only to stand behind with his weapon
in his hand, and support him [3].'
Sir John Davis has rightly called attention to this as one of
the objectionable principles of Confucius [4]. The bad effects of it
are evident even in the present day. Revenge is sweet to the
Chinese. I have spoken of their readiness to submit to
government, and wish to live in peace, yet they do not like to
resign even to government the 'inquisition for blood.' Where the
ruling authority is feeble, as it is at present, individuals and