ourselves before you in paradise, unless we had carried out the vengeance which you began.  Every day that we waited seemed as three autumns to us.  Verily, we have trodden the snow for one day, nay, for two days, and have tasted food but once.  The old and decrepit, the sick and ailing, have come forth gladly to lay down their lives.  Men might laugh at us, as at grasshoppers trusting in the strength of their arms, and thus shame our honoured lord; but we could not halt in our deed of vengeance.  Having taken counsel together last night, we have escorted my Lord Kotsuke no Suke hither to your tomb.  This dirk,[7] by which our honoured lord set great store last year, and entrusted to our care, we now bring back.  If your noble spirit be now present before this tomb, we pray you, as a sign, to take the dirk, and, striking the head of your enemy with it a second time, to dispel your hatred for ever.  This is the respectful statement of forty-seven men.”

[Footnote 7:  The dirk with which Asano Takumi no Kumi disembowelled himself and with which Oishi Kuranosuke cut off Kotsuke no Suke’s head.]

The text, “Thou shalt not live under the same heaven with the enemy of thy father,” is based upon the Confucian books.  Dr. Legge, in his “Life and Teachings of Confucius,” p. 113, has an interesting paragraph summing up the doctrine of the sage upon the subject of revenge.

“In the second book of the ‘Le Ke’ there is the following passage:—­’With the slayer of his father a man may not live under the same heaven; against the slayer of his brother a man must never have to go home to fetch a weapon; with the slayer of his friend a man may not live in the same State.’  The lex talionis is here laid down in its fullest extent.  The ’Chow Le’ tells us of a provision made against the evil consequences of the principle by the appointment of a minister called ’The Reconciler.’  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 Hea, asked him, ’What course is to be pursued in 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 market-place or the court, he must have his weapon ready to strike him.’  ‘And what is the course in 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 in the murder of an uncle or cousin?’ ’In this case the nephew or cousin is not the