Its effect was immediate and very far-reaching.  Men understood that armed revolt was in the air.  The almost Biblical fervour which pervades this extraordinary document shows an unusual sense of moral outrage.  The masterly analysis of the Diaz regime in Mexico coupled with the manner in which—­always pretending to be examining the conduct of the Mexican—­he stabs at Yuan Shih-kai, won the applause of a race that delights in oblique attacks and was ample proof that great trouble was brewing.  The document was read in every part of China and everywhere approved.  Although it suffers from translation, the text remains singularly interesting as a disclosure of the Chinese mentality; whilst the exhaustive examination of political terms it contains shows that some day Chinese will carry their inventive genius into fields they have hitherto never openly invaded.  Especially interesting is it to contrast the arguments of such a man with those of a decadent such as Yang Tu.

FROM REPUBLIC TO MONARCHY

Before I proceed with my argument I wish to make plain two points.  One is that I am not one of those reformers whose ears are their brains, and who are intoxicated with the doctrine of republicanism.  I have, therefore, no partiality for the republican form of government nor any bias for or against other forms of government.  This can be proved by my literary work during the last ten years.  The second point is that I am not one of the veteran conservatives who lay so much stress on the importance of having a dynasty.  For such are the thoughts of men who only seek to adjust themselves to existing conditions.  If one wishes to consider the present situation of the country without bias or prejudice he must disregard the rise or fall of any particular family.  Only those who bear in mind these two points can read my argument with real understanding.

I. THE QUESTION OF KUO-TI

Some time ago I said that, as political students, we should only care for Cheng-ti, i.e., the form of government and not for kuo-ti, i.e., the form of state.  Do not call this trifling with words, for it is a principle which all critics of politics should follow and never depart from.  The reason is that critics of politics should not, because they cannot, influence the question of kuo-ti.  They should not influence the question of kuo-ti because so long as the question of kuo-ti remains unsettled the major portion of the administration remains at a stand-still.  Thus there will be no political situation properly so called and there will be no political questions to discuss (here the term political means really administrative).  If a critic of politics, therefore, interfere with the question of Kuo-ti, he will be leading the nation into a condition of political instability, thus undermining the ground on which the people stand.  Such critics can be likened unto a man trying to enter a house without ascending the steps or crossing a river without a boat.