Page:Ch'un Ts'ew Pt I.pdf/135

Rh title of king which he claimed for himself sufficiently showed his feeling and purpose towards the existing dynasty. Still he and other kings of Ts‘oo called the States frequently together, and many responded to their summons, knowing that a refusal would incur their resentment, and be visited with direst punishment.

I am inclined to believe that the system of presiding chiefs, or rather of leading States, did in a degree mitigate the evils of the prevailing disorder. Ts‘e and Tsin certainly kept in check the encroachments of Ts‘oo, which, barbarous as it was, would otherwise have speedily advanced to the overthrow of the House of Chow. Yet the system increased the misery that abounded, and if it retarded, perhaps, the downfall of the descendants of king Woo, it served to show that that was unavoidable in the end. It was most anomalous,—an ,—and weakened the bond of loyal attachment to the throne. Of what use were the kings of Chow, if they could not do their proper work of government, but must be continually devolving it on one or other of their vassals? No line of rulers can continue to keep possession of the supreme authority in a nation, if their incompetency be demonstrated for centuries together. The sentimental loyalty of Confucius had lost its attractions by the time of Mencius, who was ever on the outlook for 'a minister of Heaven,' who should make an end of Chow and of the contentions among the warring States together.

But the system also increased the expenditure of the smaller States. There still remained their dues to the kings of Chow, even though they paid them so irregularly that we have instances of messengers being sent from court to Loo, and doubtless they were sent to other States as well, to beg for money and other supplies. But they had also to meet the requisitions of the ruling State, and sometimes of more than one at the same time. There are many allusions in the narratives of Tso to the arbitrariness and severity of those requisitions. On X. xiii. 5, 6, for instance, we find Tsze-ch‘an of Ch‘ing disputing on this point with the ministers of Tsin. ‘Formerly,’ said he, ‘the sons of Heaven regulated the amount of contribution according to the rank of the State. Ch‘ing ranks as the territory of an earl or a baron, and yet its contribution is now on the scale of a duke or a marquis. There is no regular rule for what we have to pay; and when our small State fails in rendering what is required, it is held to be an offender. When our contributions and offerings have no limit set to them, we have only to wait for our ruin.’ It is evident, as we study the history of this system 116]