power, which had been brought very low towards the end of the first half of the 9th century, B.C., and had only partially revived during the long reign of king Seuen. I doubt, indeed, whether it had been very strong in what is regarded as its golden age, after the duke of Chow had consolidated the dynasty, and introduced his code of ceremonial and political regulations. The theory was then good, but the practice was very indifferent.
The process of degeneracy and disintegration, however, was very marked from the beginning of the 9th century. It is an acknowledged fact that about B.C. 880 the chief of the powerful southern State of Ts‘oo usurped for a time the title of king, and wished to declare himself independent of the kings of Chow. When the Ch‘un Ts‘ëw period opens upon us, we find existing an all but anarchal condition of things. There was virtually no king in China in those days, and the lord of each feudal State did what was right in his own eyes. In 706, the earl of Ch‘ing the most recently established of all the States, if perhaps we should except Ts‘in, engaged in hostilities with the king himself, who was wounded in the battle between them.
King Woo and the duke of Chow had parcelled out their conquest—the kingdom of Shang—among the scions of their own family and their adherents of other surnames, with the representatives of T‘ang the Successful and other great Names in the previous history of the country. How many the feudal States, great and small, were at the most, I will not venture to say even approximately. The theory of the constitution left them very considerable liberty in the administration of their internal affairs, and in their relations with one another. They were to be content with their allotments of territory and not infringe on those of their neighbours, maintaining a good mutual understanding by means of court visits[1] and visits of friendship or compliment,[2] and by interchanging communications on all important events occurring within their borders. Any breaking of the peace or unjust attack of one State by another was to be represented to the royal court, and the king would then call into the field the unwieldy forces at his disposal, and deal justice on the offender.
But this beautiful theory of government presupposed a wonderful freedom from jealousy and ambition on the part of the feudal lords, and an overwhelming superiority of force on the part of the king; and, neither of these things existing, the constitution of the kingdom was torn into shreds. Instead of the harmony which the
113]
