1. The Chinese character pronounced Hsiâo, which we translate by 'Filial Piety,' and which may also perform the part of an adjective, 'filial,' of a verb, 'to be filial,' or of an adverb, 'filially,' is one of the composite characters whose meaning is suggested by the meanings of their constituent parts combined together. It is made up of two others,--One signifying 'an old man' or 'old age,' and beneath it the character signifying 'a son.' It thus, according to the Shwo Wăn, the oldest Chinese dictionary (A.D. 100), presents to the eye 'a son bearing up an old man,' that is, a child supporting his parent. Hsiâo also enters as their phonetical element into at least twenty other characters, so that it must be put down as of very early formation. The character King has been explained in the Introduction to the Shû King, p. 2; and the title, Hsiâo King, means 'the Classic of Filial Piety.'
2. Many Chinese critics contend that this brief treatise was thus designated by Confucius himself, and that it received the distinction of being styled a King before
3. But the existence of the Hsiâo King can be traced several hundred years farther back;--to within less than a century after the death of Confucius. Sze-mâ Khien, in his history of the House of Wei, one of the three marquisates into which the 4. The recovery of our classic after the fires of Khin will be related in the next chapter. Assuming here that it was recovered, we look into it, and find a conversation, or memoranda, perhaps, of several conversations, between Confucius and his disciple Ȝang-ȝze. The latter, however, is little more than a listener, to whom the sage delivers his views on Filial Piety in its various relations. There are two recensions of the text;--one in eighteen chapters., and the other in twenty-two. As edited in eighteen chapters, each of them has a very brief descriptive beading. I have given this in the subjoined translation, but the headings cannot be traced back beyond the commentary of the emperor Hsüan. The saying attributed by Ho Hsiû and others to Confucius would seem to indicate that he had himself composed the work, but the reader of it sees at once that it could not have proceeded from him. Nor do the style and method of the treatise suggest a view which has bad many advocates,--that it was written by Ȝang-ȝze, under the direction of the master. There is no reason, however, why we should not accept the still more common account,--that the Hsiâo came from the school of Ȝang-ȝze. To use the words of Hû Yin, an author of the first half of our twelfth century:--'The Classic of Filial Piety was not made by Ȝang-ȝze himself. When he retired from his conversation (or conversations) with .Kung-nî on the subject of Filial Piety, be repeated to the disciples of his own school what (the master) had said, and they classified the sayings, and formed the treatise.'CHAPTER 1.
THE NAME OF THE CLASSIC; ITS EXISTENCE BEFORE THE HAN DYNASTY; ITS CONTENTS, AND BY WHOM IT WAS WRITTEN.
