In the four thousand years and more that have elapsed since the days of Yue, over a score of dynasties have in their turn reigned over China.  The Shu Ching—­the Chinese historical classic—­gives us full accounts of the events which led to the fall of the successive dynasties of Hsia (1766 B.C.) and Shang (1122 B.C.).  In both cases we find that the leader of the successful rebellion lays stress on the fact that the T’ien-ming (Divine right) has been forfeited by the dynasty of the defeated Emperor, and that he, the successful rebel, has been but an instrument in the hands of God.  Thus the rebel becomes Emperor by right of the Divine Decree, and it remains with his descendants until by their misdeeds they provoke heaven into bestowing it upon another house.

The teachings of the sages of China are in full accordance with the view that the sovereign must rule well or not at all.  Confucius (551-479 B.C.) spent the greater part of his life in trying to instruct negligent princes in the art of government, and we know from a well-known anecdote that he regarded a bad government as “worse than a tiger.”  We are told that when one of his disciples asked Confucius for a definition of good statecraft, he replied that a wise ruler is one who provides his subjects with the means of subsistence, protects the state against its enemies, and strives to deserve the confidence of all his people.  And the most important of these three aims, said Confucius, is the last:  for without the confidence of the people no government can be maintained.  If the prince’s commands are just and good, let the people obey them, said Confucius, in reply to a question put by a reigning duke; but if subjects render slavish obedience to the unjust commands of a bad ruler, it is not the ruler only, but his sycophantic subjects themselves, who will be answerable for the consequent ruin of the state.  So far from counseling perpetual docility on the part of the governed, Confucius clearly indicates that circumstances may arise which make opposition justifiable.  The minister, he says, should not fawn upon the ruler of whose actions he disapproves:  let him show his disapproval openly.

Mencius, the “Second Sage” of China (372-289 B.C.), is far more outspoken than Confucius in his denunciation of bad rulers.  There was no sycophancy in the words which he uttered during an interview with King Hsuan of the State of Ch’i.  “When the prince treats his ministers with respect, as though they were his own hands and feet, they in their turn look up to him as the source from which they derive nourishment; when he treats them like his dogs and horses, they regard him as no more worthy of reverence than one of their fellow subjects; when he treats them as though they were dirt to be trodden on, they retaliate by regarding him as a robber and a foe.”  It is interesting to learn that this passage in Mencius so irritated the first sovereign of the Ming dynasty