China and the West

Schlegel, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich von. Philosophie der Geschichte : in achtzehn Vorlesungen gehalten zu Wien im Jahre 1828 [ID D17552].
Teil 2
Fünfte Vorlesung
Vergleichende Zusammenstellung der vier Hauptnationen der ältesten Weltperiode, in der Geistesbildung der Indier und Chinesen, der Ägypter und Hebräer ; dann auch der Perser, nach dem ihnen eigentümlichen Verhältnis und besonderen Charakter.
[Es wurden nur die Texte über China übernommen].

… Es gibt auch noch eine höhere, ganz spekulative Einbildungskraft, welche in einer solchen Mystik, wie die indische sich uns darstellt und hier charakterisiert wurde, wohl ihre eigentliche Sphäre findet. Und wenn eine solche Mystik wie die der indischen Philosophie zum Grunde liegende auch ganz rein wäre von aller Beimischung sinnlicher Gefühle und selbst ganz bilderlos; so würde man darum doch gewiß unrecht haben, wenn man der Einbildungskraft ihren Anteil an einer solchen besondern Geistesrichtung und an diesem ganzen Phänomen absprechen wollte. Wie nun bei den Chinesen in der ihnen eigentümlichen Geistesrichtung nicht die Fantasie, sondern weit mehr die Vernunft das vorherrschende Element war; das wird nach der oben zum Grunde gelegten, aus den besten und neuesten Quellen und Gewährsmännern geschöpften Charakteristik dieser Nation, kaum nötig sein, noch im einzelnen ausführlich nachzuweisen; so sehr geht es schon aus dem Ganzen hervor. Anfangs, da noch die alte chinesische Sitteneinrichtung in der einfachen, nicht so wie bei andern Völkern durch Dichtungen aller Art entstellten Gottesverehrung im Geiste und nach der bessern Lehre des Confucius bestand und erhalten war, ist es allerdings die gesunde, richtig und sittlich denkende und göttlich ordnende Vernunft gewesen, in welcher sie das höhere Prinzip ihres Lebens und auch des Staats fanden, wie sie denn selbst das höchste Wesen mit der Benennung der göttlichen Vernunft bezeichnet haben. Wenn indessen auch einige neuere Schriftsteller unsrer Zeit, das höchste Wesen, wie die Chinesen, mit dem Namen der göttlichen Vernunft bezeichnen; so kann ich diesen chinesischen Sprachgebrauch nicht zu dem meinigen machen, weil nach der Überzeugung, von welcher ich ausgehe und die auch hier zum Grunde liegt und vorausgesetzt wird, der lebendige Gott zwar ein Geist ist; aber daraus folgt nicht, daß Gott die Vernunft oder die Vernunft Gott sei. Es läßt sich eigentlich und genauer genommen und nach der wissenschaftlichen Strenge des Ausdrucks, Gott ebenso wenig eine Vernunft beilegen, als das Vermögen der Fantasie. Das letzte geschieht in der dichterischen Mythologie des alten Heidentums; das erste, wenn es wirklich so gemeinet und nicht bloß ein Fehler des unpassenden Ausdrucks ist, bezeichnet jederzeit den Rationalismus, oder das neue Heidentum der Vernunft, zu welchem aber auch schon in sehr frühen Zeiten und namentlich bei den Chinesen eine Anlage und Hinneigung gefunden wird. Es ist auch bei ihnen bald genug statt jener richtigen und gesunden, der göttlichen Ordnung gemäßen und folgenden Vernunft, die egoistisch klügelnde, alles verkünstelnde, und in Sekten sich teilende und streitende, endlich auch die bessere alte Grundlage und heilig geachtete Überlieferung nach ihrem neuen System revolutionär umwerfende Vernunft daraus geworden…
Von dem Ursprnge des alten Heidentums konnte erst bei den Indiern, bei den Chinesen aber deswegen noch nicht die Rede sein, weil wie oben erwähnt wurde, in der ersten und ältesten Zeit eine reinere und einfach patriarchalische Gottesverehrung dort in China bestanden ist und gefunden wird; und erst nachdem durch die Vernunftsekte der Tao-sse und den allgemein herrschend gewordnen Rationalismus unter dem ersten allgemeinen, großen und mächtigen Kaiser eine Revolution herbeigeführt worden, welche auf den Umsturz der alten chinesischen Lebens-, Glaubens- und Sitteneinrichtung angelegt war, ist alsdann etwas später das eigentliche Heidentum und ein fremder Götzendienst in der indischen Religion des Buddha eingeführt worden. Jene Umwälzung des gesamten alten Staats- und zugleich auch des ganzen alten Gedanken- und selbst, was bei den Chinesen unzertrennlich damit verbunden ist, des früheren Schriftsystems, ist aber recht eigentlich eine Revolution in der öffentlichen Meinung, in den Grundsätzen und Begriffen gewesen. Nachdem die mit der allgemeinen Bücherverbrennung verbundene Verfolgung und Hinrichtung vieler Gelehrter, allein gegen die dem alten Sitten- und Staatssysteme anhängende Schule des Confu-tse gerichtet war; so ist es wohl keine ganz willkürliche und bloß aus der Luft gegriffne Vermutung, wenn wir der entgegenstehenden Partei der Vernunftsekte der Tao-sse einen großen Anteil an dieser gewaltsamen Revolution und Ideenumwälzung zuschreiben; wie denn auch der mächtige erste Kaiser Shihoangti [Shihuangdi] ganz in dem Interesse dieser Partei gewesen sein muß. Denn obwohl seine Regierung nach außen glänzend war, durch die Errichtung der großen chinesischen Mauer und die Stiftung der chinesischen Kolonie in dem japanischen Staat, so ist sie nach innen in seiner despotischen Willkür durchaus revolutionär gewesen; und so bietet jene vor zweitausend Jahren stattgehabte große Katastrophe im chinesischen Reiche, obwohl uns so fern stehend, in dem weiten Abstande von Raum und Zeit und unter ganz andern Formen und Sitten geschehen, doch noch einige Ähnlichkeit oder Analogie dar mit manchem, was wir selbst in unsrer Zeitepoche erlebt und gesehen haben. Um aber den Widerspruch zu lösen, der darin zu liegen scheint, wenn wir von der einen Seite diese reinere, einfach patriarchalische Gottesverehrung von den Chinesen mit Lob erwähnt finden, überhaupt so vieles von einem verhältnismäßig sehr zivilisierten Zustande schon in den frühesten Zeiten, daneben diese obwohl entartete und übel angewandte, doch aber sehr entwickelte und hoch gesteigerte Kunst in ihrer wissenschaftlichen Kultur; und dann von der andern Seite wieder manches angeführt wurde, was auf sehr rohe oder wenigstens geringe und beschränkte Anfänge und Armut der Begriffe in dem ursprünglichen chinesischen Ideen- oder Bilderkreis, in ihrem ältesten Schriftsystem oder in der ersten Grundlage desselben hindeutet: ist nur noch hinzuzufügen, daß auch in dem großen chinesischen Lande, wie man dieses in der Geschichte mehrerer anderer gebildeten Völker gefunden hat, wo sich im Hintergrunde des herrschenden und in der historischen Zeit hochgebildeten Volksstammes, bei genauerer Untersuchung rohe oder wenigstens rauher gesittete und in der Geistesentwicklung viel weniger vorgeschrittene Urbewohner zeigen, dieses eben so auch hier gewesen ist. Sie werden hier unter dem eignen Namen der Miao in verschiednen Provinzen historisch aufgeführt, und grade ebenso, als die früheren, weniger gebildeten Urbewohner charakterisiert, und hat sich dieser Stamm der Miao noch bis in die spätere Zeiten erhalten. Überhaupt stößt die historische Forschung in der ersten Weltperiode fast überall auf eine zwiefache Völkerschicht von älterem und jüngerem Stamm; in ähnlicher Weise, wie die geognostische Untersuchung der Erdoberfläche zweierlei Gebirgsformationen und deutlich geschiedne Bildungsepochen in dieser unterscheidet. So haben also auch in China die gebildeten Ankömmlinge und eigentlichen Stifter und ersten Begründer der nachherigen Nation und des Staats oder der ersten mehr geregelten Vereine der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft, sich in manchem nach den Sitten und Gewohnheiten, der Sprache und vielleicht selbst der Bilderschrift dieser Halbwilden bequemt; so wie es auch die Europäer zum Teil ebenso gemacht haben, als sie die Mexikaner oder andre solche Völker der untersten Kulturstufe zivilisieren und durch den bessern Unterricht bilden wollten, oder in ähnlichen Fällen noch machen würden; wie es auch notwendig ist, wenn die wohlmeinende Absicht einen glücklichen Erfolg haben soll. Da wir nun mit der Herleitung der chinesischen Nation und Kultur überall immer nach Nordwesten, wo die Provinz Schensi gelegen ist, und über dieselbe hinaus hingewiesen werden; so dient dies nur der ohnehin sehr wahrscheinlichen und durch viele Zeugnisse bestätigten Idee von der allgemeinen Ableitung aller asiatischen Geisteskultur in ihren ersten Anfängen aus dem großen Mittellande in Westasien zur Bestätigung.

Sekundärliteratur
Adrian Hsia : In the second lecture, Schlegel tried to describe the world in the light of the stories told by Moses. Because it was God who created humans, they had not been created wild or primitive, but became so later. Humans were created free and were given two wills, the divine and the natural. He was placed in Paradise for observation, and the natural will gradually took over. The world history did not begin with Adam, but with Cain. After the fratricide, he fled to East Asia and found the oldest city there. Thus a warlike race was founded which was also knowledgeable in working metal, mining gold and silver. There was a second, god-fearing race, founded by Cain's brother Seth. Schlegel did not identify this race either. Perhaps the identity of these two races was not important, because both deteriorated to the point that God had to inundate the earth. The deluge killed all humankind except those in Noah's Arch. Then Schlegel became preoccupied with the high age of Noah who lived for 500 years, 400 more than the usual patriarch in the Bible. What happened after Noah was of no interest to the philosopher, as he explained earlier that when the humans still possessed the word of God, there was unity, including one language for the whole world. When the divine word slowly vanished from memory, diversity established itself, including a multitude of cultures and languages. Then a further mutation took place in accordance with different climates and environments. The present world had, according to Schlegel, four continents, Australia being considered as a part of Asia. He opined also that Europe and Asia must have originally been separate while Europe and Africa were linked by a isthmus.
In the third lecture, Schlegel analyses China. Similar to Schelling, who knew that one usually explained the origin of the others from one's own perspective, but this knowledge also did not prevent him from perceiving the Chinese culture from a European position, Schlegel was aware that the designation East and West were really relative, because, as he pointed out himself, China was situated east of Europe, but west of Peru. However, he decided to adhere to our custom, thus placing China at the farthest end of East Asia. This was a different attitude than Herder, who called the Chinese the 'corner people' (i.e. being located in the corner of the world), and Hegel, for whom the East was simply in the East and Europe was irrevocably in the West. However, Schlegel knew no relativity as to the purpose of studying China and the other ancient pagan cultures. At the very beginning, lest his audience forgot, he re-confirmed that the analysation solely served the purpose to find the still remaining traces of the original revelation of God in order to demonstrate that there might be other ways of development, but invariably, they had the same source. It follows that China is no exception. However, before Schlegel examines what he termed the inner culture, he discusses the external matters.
Schlegel was also impressed by two other items which could be considered as the emblems of China : the canals and the Great Wall. The Great or Imperial Canal was a singular achievement which no civilized country could match. And he praised the care which China took in water preservation, and whenever there was a inundation, it was invariably considered as a punishment from above. As for the Great Wall, he indicated its magnificence by the newest calculation that the cubic content was sufficient to build all the houses in England and Scotland and more. Nevertheless China was not a perfect nation. Schlegel mentioned the long, claw-like nails of mandarins and the crushed feet of women. Above all, like nearly all Europeans of his time, he was disturbed by the language. He emphasized that one sound could represent 160 different characters ; and it took the life time of a scholar to learn the ideograms. With the above features, Schlegel seems to have exhausted the negative points in the Chinese culture. However, as a non-Christian country, China must have some fundamental faults. In this connection, Schlegel comes to the point. Even though China seemed to have reached an ideal secular state without priests before the introduction of Buddhism, without a reditary nobility, where state officials were scholars, and despite the apparent unified state of China, the history of China knew no peace, but a chain of revolutions, revolts, usurpations, change of dynasties and so on. Schlegel undertakes to explain the inner intellectual development which led to this violent history. The spiritual side of a culture was linked with the language. The first written Chinese characters were pictographs, similar to those which could be found with primitive peoples such as the Amerindians, especially in Mexico. The Chinese characters were supposed to be about 4000 years old, as the learned Sinologue Abel Rémusat assumed. He also opined that the Chinese script had no character to denote a priest. This would have led to the conclusion that China did really not know any religion, and consequently could not have received any revelation. Schlegel opposed that assumption. He turned to Yi jing for help. Here Leibniz enters the picture again. After having described the combination of unbroken and broken lines to signify yin and yang, he went on to explain that Leibniz interpreted the system as similar to binary arithmetic. Schlegel himself turned to Plato to identify the yin and yang as the first theory of opposites. In addition, he also recognized the theory as representing the absolute unity as the foundation of all things. It created all things. The principle of duality is even more evident if we took the new discovery in natural sciences into account. It corresponded to the positive and negative ends of electricity, magnetism, and so on. However, the other side of the coin, the revelation, should not be neglected. The philosopher Laozi, whose teaching was identified as the philosophy of reason, ignored this with the result that his philosophy gradually degenerated to atheism, opined Schlegel. He pointed out that the parallel development of Chinese religion and scientific and practical knowledge knew three stages. The first stage was the holy revelation which resulted in the Chinese political structure as well as the idea of the Chinese empire along with the moral teachings. The second epoch which began about 600 years before the Christian era, was the age of rational philosophy. The two great representatives were Confucius and Laozi (he was then considered a rationalist!). The third stage saw the introduction of Buddhism, the most false of all pagan religions. This is a straight line of deterioration. Schlegel thought that Laozi's 'rational philosophy' prepared the way for the reception and expansion of Buddhism in China.
As far as Schlegel was concerned, he had proven that China did receive divine revelation. He then asserted that the Chinese and Mosaic traditions had many common grounds. The most apparent evidence for Schlegel was the description of the fallen dragon in Yi jing which we have already seen. This reminded Schlegel of the downfall of the 'disloyal spirit'. Once fallen to earth the dragon became the holy symbol of the Chinese Empire and its ruler. Therefore, the Son of Heaven, i.e. the emperor, should really be called the Son of God, according to Schlegel, because his will was divine. He ruled over nature and spirits and was considered the master of heaven and earth. He was the only one who could make sacrifices to heaven. However, this Chinese celestial ideology was anything but heavenly. Therefore, the Chinese history could not know peace and tranquillity. The Chinese ideology borrowed the ideas and vocabulary from the Holy Book, but used it for the wrong end. For example, it insisted there was only one emperor on earth and demanded tribute from other rulers. Another example is that its political structure resembled that of the church, it was pure state idolatry, so Schlegel. Such a system could not know peace in its history and had to be visited by revolutions and conquests, such was the law of dialectics. It also followed that the Chinese moral teaching was not moral at all, because everything was upside down. Because of this, it was ripe for Buddhism. If Islam was characterised by polygamy, then the characteristic of Buddhism is polyandry. According to Schlegel, Mohammed, because he only styled himself a prophet, was less evil or false than Buddha who (and his followers) claimed incarnation in flesh. Buddhism was in Schlegel's judgement anti-Christian.
Thus Schlegel concluded that the Chinese were proof that ancient cultures received divine revelation, because traces of it could still be found in their ancient history. However, the knowledge of truth took a wrong turn in a very early stage so that it could not develop properly. The Chinese language was proof of this result. From political idolatry it sank further downwards so that they accepted a foreign idolatry, i.e. Buddhism, which was a demonic aping of Christianity and its most serious competitor, because of all religions, Buddhism had the most followers. Such was the description of China by Schlegel from the Catholic perspective. Comparing it with Schelling's view, we could see how close their individual interpretations were even though they might not have agreed to it. Schelling called the Chinese religio-political ideology cosmocracy, quoting the same passage as Schlegel in Yi jing. Only the latter did not interpret it as cosmocracy, but the evidence of corrupted revelation. It is also interesting to see that when both philosophers described the Chinese culture as such, their attitudes were normal, i.e. they had both positive and negative things to say. As a matter of fact, positive judgements seemed to outweigh negative ones. However, once they had introduced the biblical element, identifying the biblical serpent in the Garden of Eden with the Chinese dragon, a sinister tone became evident. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that none went as far as to spell out the consequence of the identification. If the biblical serpent was the Chinese dragon, which was condemned by God to crawl on its belly and to eat dust all its life, and this dragon was the symbol of the Chinese Empire and its emperor, then China would be some kind of evil empire. But China was accused of blindness, arrogance, and perhaps also stupidity, but not of evilness. Moreover, no Christian author, Catholic or Protestant, would have words of praise for the real Satan. Schelling and Schlegel, each in his own way, merely wanted to expose the true nature of the Celestial dragon of China as really the serpent of the dust. At the beginning, it still retained shreds of memory of heaven, then it deteriorated until it embraced Buddhism.

Lucie Bernier : In the third lecture, Schlegel analyses China. He was aware that the designation East and West was really relative, because, as he pointed out, China was situated east of Europe, but west of Peru. However, he decided to adhere to "our" custom, thus placing China at the farthest end of East Asia. His attitude differed from Herder's, who called the Chinese the "corner people" (that is, being located in the corner of the world), and Hegel's, for whom the East was simply in the East, and Europe was irrevocably in the West. However, Schlegel's open-mindedness vanished when he reaffirmed that the analysis served the sole purpose of finding the still-remaining traces of the original revelation of God in order to demonstrate that while there might be other ways of development, they invariably had the same source. It follows that China is no exception. However, before Schlegel examines what he termed the inner culture, he discusses external matters. Despite the apparent unified state of China, the history of China knew no peace, but consisted of a chain of revolutions, revolts, usurpations, changes of dynasty and so on. Schlegel undertakes to explain the inner intellectual development which led to this violent history. He saw the spiritual side of a culture as being linked with its language. The first written Chinese characters were pictographs, similar to those which could be found among primitive peoples such as the Amerindians, especially in Mexico. The Chinese characters were supposed to be about four thousand years old, as the learned Sinologue Abel Rémusat assumed, and he also believed that the Chinese script had no character to denote a priest. This would have led to the conclusion that China really did not know any religion, and consequently could not have received any revelation. Schlegel opposed that assumption. He pointed out that the parallel development of Chinese religion and scientific and practical knowledge had three stages. The first stage was the holy revelation which resulted in the Chinese political structure, the idea of the Chinese empire, and moral teachings. The second epoch, which began about six hundred years before the Christian era, was the age of rational philosophy. The two great representatives were Confucius and Laozi (he was then considered a rationalist!). The third stage saw the introduction of Buddhism, the most false of all pagan religions. This development shows a straight line of deterioration. Schlegel thought that Laozi's "rational philosophy" prepared the way for the reception and expansion of Buddhism in China.
As far as Schlegel was concerned, he had proven that China did receive divine revelation. He then asserted that the Chinese and Mosaic traditions had much common ground. The most apparent evidence of this for Schlegel was the description of the fallen dragon in the Yijing which we have already discussed in connection with Schelling. This reminded Schlegel of the downfall of the "disloyal spirit". Once fallen to earth the dragon became the holy symbol of the Chinese Empire and its ruler. Therefore, the Son of Heaven, the emperor, should really be called the Son of God, according to Schlegel, because his will was divine. He ruled over nature and spirits and was considered the master of heaven and earth. He was the only one who could make sacrifices to heaven. However, this Chinese celestial ideology was anything but heavenly. It borrowed ideas and vocabulary from the Holy Book, but used it for the wrong end. For example, it insisted that there was only one emperor on earth and demanded tribute from other rulers. Another example is that although its political structure resembled that of the church, it was, to Schlegel, pure state idolatry. Such a system could not know peace in its history and had to be visited by revolutions and conquests, such was the law of dialectics. It also followed that Chinese moral teachings were not moral at all, because everything was upside down. Because of this, it was ripe for Buddhism. If Islam was characterized by polygamy, then the characteristic of Buddhism is polyandry. According to Schlegel, Mohammed, because he only styled himself a prophet, was less evil or false than the Buddha who (and his followers) claimed fleshly incarnation. Buddhism was, in Schlegel’s judgement, anti-Christian. Thus Schlegel concluded that the Chinese were proof that ancient cultures had received divine revelation, because traces of it could still be found in their ancient history. However, the knowledge of Truth took a wrong turn at a very early stage and it was not able to develop properly. The Chinese language was proof of this. From political idolatry it sank further downwards so that the Chinese accepted a foreign idolatry, that is, Buddhism, which was a demonic aping of Christianity and its most serious competitor, because of all religions, Buddhism had the most followers. Such was the description of China by Schlegel from the Catholic perspective. Comparing it with Schelling’s view, we can see how close their individual interpretations were. Schelling called the Chinese religio-political ideology a cosmocracy, quoting the same passage as Schlegel in the Yijing. Schlegel however did not interpret it as a cosmocracy, but as the evidence of a corrupted revelation. It is also interesting to see that when both philosophers merely described Chinese culture, their attitudes were balanced, in other words, they had both positive and negative things to say. However, once they had introduced the biblical element, identifying the biblical serpent in the Garden of Eden with the Chinese dragon, a sinister tone becomes evident. All intentions of being fair and adhering to facts had to be subject to the dictates of the one and only true religion.